Just Two Good Old Boys

066 Just Two Good Old Boys Special: Navigating the Tightrope: Free Speech, Protests, and the Unrest on Campus

April 25, 2024 Gene and Ben Season 2024 Episode 66
066 Just Two Good Old Boys Special: Navigating the Tightrope: Free Speech, Protests, and the Unrest on Campus
Just Two Good Old Boys
More Info
Just Two Good Old Boys
066 Just Two Good Old Boys Special: Navigating the Tightrope: Free Speech, Protests, and the Unrest on Campus
Apr 25, 2024 Season 2024 Episode 66
Gene and Ben

Discover the razor's edge balance between free speech and protest regulation as we ignite a fervent debate on recent student arrests at UT Austin. My co-host and I don't shy away from the tough questions: How do we protect civil liberties while ensuring the safety and rights of all? We dive deep into the tumultuous world of campus politics, dissecting Governor Abbott's response, and exploring the complex dynamics between law enforcement and the right to demonstrate. Expect a no-holds-barred discussion that challenges your assumptions and provides a nuanced look at the consequences of speaking out.

As we pivot to the broader American landscape, we scrutinize the hot-button topic of selective law enforcement. From the streets of Portland to the hills of San Francisco, inconsistency and ethical dilemmas abound. We grapple with the moral intricacies of abortion rights and the societal implications of personal beliefs imposed on others. Our conversation weaves through this moral maze with transparency and candidness, even finding humor in our shared exasperation with everyday inefficiencies like those dreaded postal services.

Closing out, we wrestle with the thorny issues of bias, liberty, and association rights, as we contemplate the weight of individual versus collective responsibility amidst protest and civil unrest. By invoking historical parallels such as the treatment of Jews in 20th-century Europe, we paint a vivid picture of the stakes involved in current events. Whether discussing the potential political ascent of Governor Abbott or the cultural impact of meme politics, our exchange remains as dynamic and thought-provoking as ever. Tune in and be part of this robust and reflective dialogue that's as entertaining as it is enlightening.

Support the Show.

Check out Gene's other podcasts -
podcast.sirgene.com and unrelenting.show
Read Ben's blog and see product links at namedben.com
If you have comments drop at
Email: gene@sirgene.com Or dude@namedben.com
or on
X.com: @sirgeneTX @dudenamedbenTX
Can't donate? sub to Gene's GAMING youtube channel (even if you never watch!) Sub Here
Weekend Gaming Livestream atlasrandgaming onTwitch
StarCitizen referral code STAR-YJD6-DKF2
Get EMP protection for your car using our code sirgene

Just Two Good Old Boys
Become a supporter of the show!
Starting at $3/month
Support
Show Notes Transcript Chapter Markers

Discover the razor's edge balance between free speech and protest regulation as we ignite a fervent debate on recent student arrests at UT Austin. My co-host and I don't shy away from the tough questions: How do we protect civil liberties while ensuring the safety and rights of all? We dive deep into the tumultuous world of campus politics, dissecting Governor Abbott's response, and exploring the complex dynamics between law enforcement and the right to demonstrate. Expect a no-holds-barred discussion that challenges your assumptions and provides a nuanced look at the consequences of speaking out.

As we pivot to the broader American landscape, we scrutinize the hot-button topic of selective law enforcement. From the streets of Portland to the hills of San Francisco, inconsistency and ethical dilemmas abound. We grapple with the moral intricacies of abortion rights and the societal implications of personal beliefs imposed on others. Our conversation weaves through this moral maze with transparency and candidness, even finding humor in our shared exasperation with everyday inefficiencies like those dreaded postal services.

Closing out, we wrestle with the thorny issues of bias, liberty, and association rights, as we contemplate the weight of individual versus collective responsibility amidst protest and civil unrest. By invoking historical parallels such as the treatment of Jews in 20th-century Europe, we paint a vivid picture of the stakes involved in current events. Whether discussing the potential political ascent of Governor Abbott or the cultural impact of meme politics, our exchange remains as dynamic and thought-provoking as ever. Tune in and be part of this robust and reflective dialogue that's as entertaining as it is enlightening.

Support the Show.

Check out Gene's other podcasts -
podcast.sirgene.com and unrelenting.show
Read Ben's blog and see product links at namedben.com
If you have comments drop at
Email: gene@sirgene.com Or dude@namedben.com
or on
X.com: @sirgeneTX @dudenamedbenTX
Can't donate? sub to Gene's GAMING youtube channel (even if you never watch!) Sub Here
Weekend Gaming Livestream atlasrandgaming onTwitch
StarCitizen referral code STAR-YJD6-DKF2
Get EMP protection for your car using our code sirgene

Speaker 1:

Hey Ben, how are you doing?

Speaker 2:

Special episode.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, we got a new song.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, new theme song.

Speaker 1:

Pretty cool.

Speaker 2:

Thanks to AI.

Speaker 1:

I know I mean it's not perfect, but it's pretty fucking good.

Speaker 2:

It's not bad. I was surprised. I really am.

Speaker 1:

I'm surprised. Five words generated that song yeah, mm-hmm, I really am. I'm surprised. Five words generated that song yeah. And it didn't even directly steal anything from the theme song from Dukes of Hazzard there you go. Good job AI.

Speaker 2:

So you and I were having a text debate.

Speaker 1:

Exactly so. I'm like, dude, let's just record it instead of typing shit back and forth. Yeah, uh, so I sent you a video of ut austin where there's a massive amount of cops arresting, uh, the students out there. Yep, and we have different takes on this.

Speaker 2:

We do. I think this is highly hypocritical of Abbott, especially since he just signed, you know, less than a month ago, the campus free speech bill and everything else. I think that you know if someone that's exactly why they're getting arrested. Okay, disagree, but here's what it comes down to Anyone who's threatening violence or committing violence should be arrested.

Speaker 1:

Anyone who's out there?

Speaker 2:

protesting should be allowed to protest.

Speaker 1:

So let me ask you a question. Were all the BLM protests, protests.

Speaker 2:

So those people who were violent should have been arrested. The whole concept of mostly peaceful protests is obviously BS and what should have happened there is. Anyone instigating any violence should have been arrested and charged.

Speaker 1:

Is breaking a window violence.

Speaker 2:

Yes, okay, it's a crime.

Speaker 1:

It's a crime. Hold on. Yes, okay, it's a crime. It's hard. Let's define a crime.

Speaker 2:

Hold on, let's define a crime let's make sure we agree upon what a crime is.

Speaker 1:

A crime is harm to one's property, one's person or one's liberty right anything else is not a crime, okay is preventing somebody from going to class at UT a crime?

Speaker 2:

No.

Speaker 1:

Oh, it's not.

Speaker 2:

Unless if they're detaining them. They are detaining them If they're physically detaining.

Speaker 1:

They're preventing them from physically moving across a campus that they have full rights to be on.

Speaker 2:

Okay, if someone is holding you and detaining you, then yes, that is a crime Would someone need to lay hands on you in order to detain you. Let's see how good your legal skills are here no okay preventing me from entering a building is not detaining me. It is, it is not it is absolutely not. It is absolutely okay, yeah, and you think that, uh, the guy. I sent you another video last night about the guy who asked for a lawyer dog yeah probably clearly didn't ask for a lawyer.

Speaker 1:

Hilarious, because there is a lawyer whose name is lawyer dog, and I thought that's what the video was about when you first sent it to me. I started watching.

Speaker 2:

Oh, he means uh, lito, lito's law, he's lawyer dog my entire point here is the absolute literal interpretation of the law sometimes misses the premise of the law.

Speaker 1:

I don't think that the premise of people being prevented by BLM from entering their own businesses is a premise that needs to be missed.

Speaker 2:

We're not talking about stopping someone from entering their own property, because that is clear, because somebody that pays to be in a classroom and is prevented from entering that classroom, is being denied their property. They paid for that. Uh, okay, first of all, I think the answer is to expel these students. I think the answer is to more than that.

Speaker 1:

That's the minimum that should be done. I think that'd be doing hard labor. They they don't realize what they're doing because they're following somebody, but it does not remove the responsibility from them. And I said the exact same thing during BLM.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, well, here's what I'm going to say. I don't think that limiting people's access to class and so on is right. That said, there are plenty of people who are just walking around protesting, speaking their mind, that are not part of that. That shouldn't be being arrested in a mass arrest. Because you can see it in the video.

Speaker 1:

You can hear what Abbott has said what.

Speaker 2:

Abbott posted. What Abbott posted. Did you read his post, did you?

Speaker 1:

read what he said.

Speaker 2:

That more cops and more people will be arrested. Until the protest is done.

Speaker 1:

That's not okay. It's totally okay.

Speaker 2:

No, it isn't. You have a right to assemble. You have a right to peacefully address the government with your grievances.

Speaker 1:

The thing that happened during BLM and is continuing to happen is the change in definition of words, because nothing that happened during blm was a protest. It was an insurrection. It was not a protest.

Speaker 2:

Let's look, so you're.

Speaker 1:

You're the one changing the definition here what it what it comes down to is if I want to go stand on anywhere on campus whether it's at or.

Speaker 2:

A&M or UT Austin, no I can't because of the free speech laws, I will get arrested. I've already gone through this as a student at Texas A&M, arguing over these exact stupid fucking laws where they say oh, you've got your free speech zone over here, this is where you can do it. No, fuck that. My entire point here is we are pushing totalitarianism because it's something we don't like. Okay, I don't like the pro-palestinian or the pro-hommas side of this. I think it's stupid. But here's what I'll say. I don't want to see a tyrannical answer to bad speech, because that's a dumb answer.

Speaker 1:

All it does is Again, you're doing a red herring here. No one's talking about bad speech. It's not a red herring. We're talking about preventing free movement of US citizens.

Speaker 2:

And I think you're equally putting a red herring by saying the minority in this group means that all of the groups should be arrested.

Speaker 1:

I did not say or imply that. What I'm saying is what I'm seeing on these videos are a bunch of kids, even though they're adults they're over 18 that are repeating things that someone else says. And when they say things like link arms, they link arms.

Speaker 2:

And when they say step forward, everybody steps forward okay, and they shouldn't be doing that, they should be not being dumb, but here's the thing how do you teach them from doing things? They're dumb their parents not by giving them a criminal record for the rest of their lives, by giving them a criminal record, because even what you do should have a consequence.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, and that's all finding good until you are the enemy of the state, and this is where I think the state should have a whole hell of a lot less power and should fuck off.

Speaker 1:

I'm okay with the private police of the university doing this. It doesn't have to be the state, that's fine.

Speaker 2:

And if the university were private and the university said we don't want this on our property because it was a private university, the way it should be, then that would be fine. And if they didn't leave when they were asked to then arrest them for trespassing, Fine with that. But it is a public university. It is a public place where anyone should be allowed to assemble and say whatever the hell they want. And if I'm sitting Again.

Speaker 1:

it's not about saying things. No one is questioning.

Speaker 2:

Okay, if a group of us are blocking the sidewalk because there's a bunch of us there. Again, it's obstructing something. That's obstructing someone's freedom of movement. Sure, Exactly. But if I force you to take an alternate path to class, that's my right to stand there and block the road.

Speaker 1:

It's.

Speaker 1:

It may be your individual but it is not your right as a group of people linking arms, preventing anybody from getting into a building or getting out for that matter, which didn't happen in UT, but it did happen at Columbia, where they literally trapped students inside a building and wouldn't let them out. Yeah, and we have an example of this from a hundred years ago not quite a hundred years ago where literally the same thing was happening. Literally, this is pre-official start of World War II. This is Germany in the 1930s, after Hitler moved to Germany and the rise in anti-Jewish propaganda was going full swing, but before there was ever a World War II.

Speaker 1:

What we saw was exactly the same type of behavior, which is just start pointing and othering people who are German citizens, who have been living there for hundreds of years, some of them, and saying, oh, everything is their fault.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, this other ring is hold on, hold on, stop, stop for a second, stop for a second. You're getting caught up in something. What's?

Speaker 1:

a jewish student that's going to you to have to do with israel's policies. Why does he need to depends?

Speaker 2:

on the student. I don't know if there's specifics or not, but what I would say is likely zero are they in the israeli?

Speaker 1:

I don't think, so Hold on.

Speaker 2:

The othering that is happening in our nation has nothing to do with Jews. It has everything to do with totalitarianism and the state versus the individualist and the individual. That's what it comes down to.

Speaker 1:

It's not always the state versus the individual. Sometimes it's a group of communists versus the individual. Uh, that's what it comes down to. It's not always the state versus the individual.

Speaker 2:

Sometimes it's a group of communists versus the individual, and that has happened in both germany and in russia, in the soviet union it's before there was a communist state, there was a group of communists yes, and see our the ending of our last show to my comment on communism. But what I would say is look, I don't think you should other or outline any group as your enemy. Individuals, sure, individuals based off of individual behavior.

Speaker 1:

I have no problem with any individual being targeted for any purpose that they can be demonstrated as doing that they can be demonstrated as doing. But the problem comes in when you have people literally just picking something doesn't matter what it is, some characteristic and then using that person or that group of people with those characteristics as the endpoint of their frustration with somebody who is not that person. Like I assume most of this stuff happening in universities arises from Israel right now, but I there are very few people, maybe short of you know, actual people that have connections to Israeli government or Israeli businesses that would be somehow in direct line of fire yeah say so.

Speaker 2:

Let me just say this blaming people of a particular ethnicity or religion, or what's happening or defending one way is nuts or defending people of a particular religion, faith or anything else, and saying that they can do no wrong is also just a equally problematic we should.

Speaker 2:

Let me just tell you what I think the governor and what university and state police should be doing. What they should be doing is making sure the protesters aren't blocking off any individual building, or you know. If someone's forced to take an alternate route, they're forced to take an alternate route, Fine. If there's anyone being violent, pull them out of the crowd, arrest them, charge them. Fine To disperse the crowd, to break up the protest, to declare it an unlawful assembly. The way it is going down right now is not okay. The answer to bad speech isn't to try and shut that speech down. It's more speech. It's the Jewish students on campus having a counter-protest right next to it and yell and scream at each other and get it out.

Speaker 1:

Anyone who's violent, shut that shit down. Other than that, let them do it.

Speaker 2:

That's not how it works. That is how it works in a free society. That is what it means.

Speaker 1:

The Jewish students on campus are 50% lawyers and 50% doctors, and those lawyers will end up being judges at some point and those judges will remember this day.

Speaker 2:

Yes, and that's not necessarily a good thing for this country well, maybe somebody should stop protesting them oh my god. No, you're wrong on this. You're, you are emotionally tied to this.

Speaker 1:

I'm not and you're wrong. I have nothing to do with israel.

Speaker 2:

Look what it comes down to is. The answer is more speech, not censoring. And the problem I have is, I'm sure there's some bad people doing some bad things and those bad people should be removed from the crowd and taken care of from the crowd and taken care of. But I do not believe, from what I have seen, that the entire crowd is riotous and being destructive. So I don't think you can take away someone's right to protest, their right to get a redress to their grievances, their right to stand out and scream really nasty things. You can't remove that, you just can't. I'm sorry, but if you're arresting someone, you are.

Speaker 1:

If someone is standing there, if I am standing there going no, no, gene, I'm going to make a point.

Speaker 2:

Hold on, I'm going to make a point and this could be clipped out of context, whatever, I don't care. If I want to stand out there with, let's say, german symbolism from 100 years ago and say Hitler was right or whatever, I should never be touched. Whatever, yeah, that should. I should never be touched, not because I agree with that, not because I think that's right, but because the right to free speech is sacrosanct.

Speaker 1:

End of story.

Speaker 2:

Difference between free speech and actions that limit other people's freedom depending on yes, very narrowly sure but again, if a group of us no, if a group of us want to go, stand in a certain portion of the sidewalk and not move and you can't walk through because you're afraid and we're all blocking it. Go find a different route, sorry.

Speaker 1:

So it's the same thing as abortion clinics? Now, I happen to be pro-life. You're a little ambiguous on that point but not ambiguous at all there are. Well, we've had a whole episode on that topic, remember, but uh there are yes, and I think my views are very, very straightforward there are people that physically stood in the way of women going to planned parenthood to prevent them from committing what they consider to be murder, and the courts have come down on this and said that, ok, the courts are.

Speaker 2:

You know what, you know how many fucking decisions lately have been put down by the courts that are absolutely asinine. We are losing our freedoms through the judiciary. It is gone, and it is gone largely because of stupid fucking judges making stupid fucking decisions. And what it comes down to is you know what, if I'm surrounding a building and it is sieged and no one can come in or out, sure that's a problem. If I leave one entrance and make it hard for you, then that is different.

Speaker 1:

No, so it's really not. It is and again, I've been consistent on this, exactly like I have with blm. When that shit was going down in portland, uh, where I used to work, where that shit was going down in san francisco, I was saying the exact same thing. It it's like why are they waiting? These people should be arrested, trucked off and prevented from taking over the places that they don't own.

Speaker 2:

But there's a perfect example of what I'm talking about, because those people were doing things that were beneficial to the state, you had selective enforcement and that's why this enforcement mechanism shouldn't even exist.

Speaker 1:

Well, that saying, because it's selective, it shouldn't exist, I think it's throwing the baby out with the bath water absolutely.

Speaker 2:

It's time to do that, because this baby is dead and gone and it's time to get rid of it. See, I knew you were for abortion right there, dude.

Speaker 2:

Okay, you know what, just to state for the record for people who haven't heard it before. Here's the thing I believe life begins at conception. However, I, and no one else should ever be forced to live for another. So that means if a woman decides you know what, I'm just done with this, it's evil of her. She shouldn't do it. The moral decision there is not to. However, I cannot morally compel her to hold on to a child for any amount of time. Now, if the child can live on its own, or has any chance of living on its own, you don't kill the kid, you just remove it from the woman. So I think that's pretty clear and morally consistent that I'm an individualist, I'm an anarchist, I'm a libertarian, I'm a leave me the hell alone person and I wouldn't want to live my life for anyone. So why the hell should I make anyone else and ask me how I feel about taxes?

Speaker 1:

And I didn't feel about taxes.

Speaker 2:

Oh, Jesus Christ yeah. No look, I and you know what folks. We're actually pretty good friends and this is a debate.

Speaker 1:

And we're actually laughing about it. It's all good. Then you picked the wrong episode. We're basically 95% overlap and like 5% are the areas we try to look for, just to find something we disagree on that. We can actually have this level of conversation with the both of us kind of getting a little excited, which is fun.

Speaker 2:

Uh, but the other 95% would be bored.

Speaker 1:

It's like yeah yeah, you're right. Uh, exactly so this is actually good, but I just don't know. To me, I think my point has been consistent. The only difference that I see is nobody was doing jack shit with the blm and they should have and now abbott is doing something with these current same people by the way.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, but abbott didn't do anything about blm, but so he's being inconsistent and this is a problem and what I would again, what I would say is what should have been shut down and what should be shut down now is any violence or actual crime, anything short of that bad speech making your life a little inconvenient.

Speaker 1:

Fuck off, it's my right thing, because inconvenience for somebody, uh, that you know has flexibility is one thing. For somebody that takes the bus, doesn't own a car and has to live within certain guidelines, inconvenience is very different. Yeah, I ran into a person yesterday at the post office where I went to pick up a couple of packages that, uh, they had left notes, uh for me to pick up. Turn couple of packages that they had left notes for me to pick up. Well, it turned out both of them were already shipped back, which is wonderful. I've got to love the US Post Service.

Speaker 2:

How long were they there, Gene?

Speaker 1:

About a week and a half.

Speaker 2:

That's a long time.

Speaker 1:

That's not that long. I remember picking shit up a month later and it was still at the post office, like 20 years ago. Obviously they don't hold it that long these days, and it was still at the post office, like 20 years ago. Obviously, they don't hold it that long these days, and one of them was from New Zealand, which is fucking perfect, so that'll be a long ways coming back.

Speaker 2:

What did you order from New Zealand? A mouse Like a fluffy one, or what?

Speaker 1:

No, no, it's not an exotic pet. No, it's a gaming mouse.

Speaker 2:

I was thinking food for your snake.

Speaker 1:

Oh, no, no, Exotic food for the snake. No, no, it's a gaming mouse from a company that I'd been using their mice for many years, and they just had a new model come out, so I did the Kickstarter, waited a year for this thing to actually be manufactured. They finally shipped it out and it got shipped back to them.

Speaker 2:

Yeah.

Speaker 1:

So fun times. But anyway, the woman that I was sitting there waiting for him to do that ran into a womanaddressed envelope. That was a? Um, I don't think it was overnight, but it was like next day delivery and signature required. And a few days go by and she doesn't get anything. So she goes to the post office and they say, oh, um, yeah, looks like it's. Uh, they tried to deliver it. Nobody answered. So, um, it try. Uh, the the driver probably has it. So come back tomorrow and pick it up. If they don't deliver the next day, no delivery.

Speaker 1:

She comes back the next day and they said, oh, that was sent over to our uh sorting facility in um, uh in downtown austin, not the local office. So if you want it, go there and they should have it. So she goes there, talks to them there and they said, nope, we didn't get anything. We, we don't have anything here. Um, you know, odds are it was just kind of lost at your local facility. So she comes back to the local facility. They start looking for it. Can't find anything. Said, yeah, maybe it's, maybe it'll show up tomorrow.

Speaker 1:

This is literally like a next day service that she herself filled out yeah and paid for lots of money so that she could get some documents from the courts. I don't know what documents were. I didn't pry, but given the length of the story I'm telling, you could tell I I was there for a good half hour and I ended up chit-chatting with her and, um, it was that the cherry on top was she. She doesn't have a car, she's taking a bus to these places and it's like, okay, jesus, fucking christ, this is, this is typical government service bureaucracy bullshit that you're dealing with. Yeah, and that sucks for her and that sucks for her.

Speaker 2:

And so my, my not my problem, not my responsibility is that, um, you know, there's different levels of discomfort.

Speaker 1:

There's the discomfort of somebody who is is relatively free from scheduling constraints and is fully mobile, versus the discomfort of people that aren't either. One of those things.

Speaker 2:

So I think yeah, and what I would say to that is that's very communistic of you to take the plight of the little one and to want equality among men. But that's not reality. And what I would say there is maybe she should look at her finances and look at getting a moped or a bicycle to make her life easier.

Speaker 1:

Well, maybe, but my point was simply that saying discomfort is easy to do when discomfort is just some slight thing, some people may not have the same level of discomfort. And, frankly, my answer to any of that is if the law says that you cannot block access to something, then fucking A, enforce the law.

Speaker 2:

The law is wrong. And here's what I'll say. I will refer everyone to the Declaration of Independence and the comments in it about long-suffering while things are sufferable, but what I'll say is just wait until this is turned against you and used against you. I'm for defund the police, burn the whole damn system to the ground and start over, because what is coming down on us and the direction things are going isn't going to be good for me, isn't going to be good for my kids or their kids. We are on the cusp of a totalitarian takeover like the world has never seen, and it's all going to be predicated on people who are back the blue and okay. When the cops do something against someone they don't like, fuck that no more.

Speaker 1:

stop it so when, when the cops do something that is actually good for a change, you're happy to prevent them from doing that it depends.

Speaker 2:

What are they doing? That's good for a change enforcing laws. I don't agree with the laws they're enforcing and what again? I would say the only things they should be preventing or stopping or trying to do, because you can't really prevent. Crime is actually, as I defined crime earlier, harm against one's property, one's person or one's Liberty. Anything else is not a crime.

Speaker 1:

Fuck off person or one's liberty anything else is not a crime. Fuck off, sue people well, this is not criminal. It's definitely criminal, and preventing from people from exercising their ability to go to places they paid for hits all three of those literally so sue the university for not providing for your safe transport to class.

Speaker 2:

But no, I don't think again. The problem comes in with your theory. There is, because this is a public institution. If this were happening at Baylor, for example, a private school or Rice. If this were happening at Baylor, for example, a private school or Rice, okay, sure, the private institution has some rights there. This is a government building owned by the state of Texas that everyone there who is a Texan pays for that has a right to that, regardless of whether they're enrolled and pay for tuition at the university or not.

Speaker 1:

Well, absolutely, I totally agree with that. They are enrolled and pay for tuition at the university or not. Well, absolutely, I totally agree with that. And then that's why somebody, including somebody in a uniform that prevents you from going into a building, is actually acting illegally. Who's the person in the uniform? No, I said even a person in the uniform.

Speaker 2:

We've seen plenty of videos of cops telling people to get out of police stations.

Speaker 1:

A police station is a public place.

Speaker 2:

You can go into a police station, it's not a problem, but I don't care if it's a cop preventing you from going into a police station or a group of protesters preventing you from going into a police station I do doing something that's illegal I really care, because one has the force of the state behind it and can shoot you and do lots of things to you legally well, not legally, once the case goes to criminal court oh, please did you pay attention to the atf yeah, yeah, nobody cams, yeah, nobody can't. That's gonna bite my ass no bullshit, they're gonna get away with it. Scott free that was a fucking assassination dude.

Speaker 1:

That was totally an assassination, but I don't think they're going to get away with it.

Speaker 2:

Well, same.

Speaker 1:

I mean if they get away with it.

Speaker 2:

By the way, we're talking about the executive at the Arkansas airport that was gunned down by the ATF.

Speaker 1:

Clinton Airport executive that was shot. But if they get away with it, then there's a lot more to the story than we know, because I'm telling you a much higher level is going to have to cover that up.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, well, I'm telling you right now whether it's that or this. Anytime we see excesses by the police and I think just breaking up a protest and arresting everyone there is an excess, I think they could be much more strategic about it.

Speaker 1:

It's not a protest. It's not a protest, just like BLM wasn't a protest.

Speaker 2:

And I guarantee you there are at least, there's at least one individual there that's getting caught up in this, that had nothing but good intentions and wanted to go protest against Stupidity is not an excuse for failure to understand laws.

Speaker 1:

That's been said before.

Speaker 2:

Unjust laws are meant to be defied.

Speaker 1:

So you well point to an unjust law, and then we can discuss it.

Speaker 2:

Any limitation of speech on campus.

Speaker 1:

No one's limiting their speech. They're limiting.

Speaker 2:

Yes, they are.

Speaker 1:

Others from engaging in law collectivities.

Speaker 2:

Any limitation of assembly on campus. Gene, I have been in Texas universities for more recently than you have. Okay, I know what the laws have been in Texas universities for more recently than you have.

Speaker 1:

Okay, I know what the I don't know. I'm pretty sure I've dated Texas university girls a lot more recently than you have.

Speaker 2:

Okay, I'm just telling you the way Texas handles free speech on campus, with free speech zones and everything else is horseshit. Well, I think you're showing your bias.

Speaker 1:

I think you're showing your bias. I think you're showing your bias.

Speaker 2:

My bias for freedom and liberty and to be left the hell alone.

Speaker 1:

Your bias for personal experience with Texas universities doing something you don't like.

Speaker 2:

For the record, I was never arrested on campus but you know I came damn close a couple of times and I've done plenty to probably get arrested on campus throughout the years. But what I would say is I am for dangerous liberty over safe slavery and I think that's the differentiation, that sounds wonderful. It's not the sound bite, it's real.

Speaker 1:

It's nothing to do with what we're talking about. I think it does, it does not, it does not, it does not not. Every group of people that stands at a university with a sign is a protester. Some of those people, it doesn't matter if they're a quote-unquote protester.

Speaker 2:

I could say I love, uh, insert police chief name here. I, you know, cuck me harder, daddy. Whatever, it doesn't matter.

Speaker 1:

I have a right to say it.

Speaker 2:

That's going to get played back. Uh-huh, Uh-huh. You're missing the point, dude. The point is they have a right to go stand on whatever street corner, do whatever the hell they want, say whatever the hell they want as long as they do not harm someone else, someone else's property or someone else's liberty.

Speaker 1:

Which they are.

Speaker 2:

Show me All three of those. Show me. I don't agree. I don't agree with your interpretation.

Speaker 1:

Well, you don't have to agree with my interpretation. The courts agree with my interpretation.

Speaker 2:

Yes, you're on the side of the tyrants. I got you.

Speaker 1:

No courts agree with my interpretation. Yes, you're on the side of tyrants, I gotcha preventing. No, you're on the side of hippies, you're you're. No, I am on the side of libertarians, I am on the side of anarchists that say willful association, leave me the hell alone yeah, there's a difference between a group of people that get together and stand around and a group of people that get together and then go throw rocks at stores. Okay, and?

Speaker 2:

if anyone who throws a rock should be arrested for destruction of property.

Speaker 1:

No, I'm not I'm saying those people should be drug out of the crowd and those people should be. Those people are the crowd. They all threw rocks oh, jesus christ when everybody links their chain, hold on. I just want to make a point here you are doing the othering.

Speaker 2:

You are accusing them of nope? Not at all 100?

Speaker 1:

what group 100?

Speaker 2:

you just said the entire crowd is guilty. You don't know that?

Speaker 1:

I see a picture of a group of people linking arms. Every single one that linked those arms is guilty. The ones that are standing next to them with cameras or phones taking videos clearly are not the ones getting arrested. Not everybody in a square mile is getting arrested, unlike what you're implying. It's just the people that are acting in a matter that prevents others from exercising their freedom.

Speaker 2:

Well, we'll see. We'll see if charges are even filed. They're not going to file charges, they never do so I, I disagree with you and I really think that you are brushing up against that othering limit on your own just by the statements you made. I, I really think you are, and I don't think that that's okay, oh, you're just because the right level of analysis is always the individual, absolutely, and when I see a group, of individuals doing the exact same thing at the same.

Speaker 1:

That's okay. Oh, you're, just Because the right level of analysis is always the individual, absolutely.

Speaker 2:

And when I see a group of individuals doing the exact same thing at the same time, that doesn't mean they're all guilty of the same thing it is.

Speaker 1:

If they're all doing it, how do you not get that?

Speaker 2:

Because they're not all throwing rocks. And if I decide to link arm with people that I haven't seen them do anything wrong, that is guilt by association, literally.

Speaker 1:

I haven't seen them do anything wrong. That is guilt by association, literally. It is guilt by physical association. If you're going off and you're going to become a volunteer for the Ukrainian army, you should expect to get shot just like a Ukrainian.

Speaker 2:

That is a very different circumstance. Is it, though, yes? How? Yes, that is a very different circumstance. Is it, though yes?

Speaker 1:

how? Yes, because what you're?

Speaker 2:

doing is a logical fallacy.

Speaker 1:

Red herring right here I said 100, nope yes, no.

Speaker 2:

Okay, well, the listeners can decide yeah, they can.

Speaker 1:

I don't think you understand what a red henry argument is then I is that this is not one of those what?

Speaker 2:

What I'm saying is yes, and just like you had to send me the Wikipedia on Kristallnacht because you didn't think I knew what that was either, While you were talking, like you didn't know what it was.

Speaker 1:

No.

Speaker 2:

I know what it is and I think there's. Oh, jesus Christ, let's not go down this road. I am well aware of German history.

Speaker 1:

I well aware of german history. I have read plenty. Yeah, I think you read the wrong kind of german history. How so? I think you read the kind that excludes the jews?

Speaker 2:

no, not at all. Uh, I mean uh, you know, one of the last german population were the jews in 1930s. Uh, pretty small, how small I don't remember the exact percentage. Why?

Speaker 1:

well, because there sure seemed to be a disproportionate response to them.

Speaker 2:

Agreed and there often is Same thing happened in the what was it former Czechoslovakian area of the Czech Republic. The pogroms I mean the Jews have been rounded up and executed a lot throughout history. I mean the Jews have been rounded up and executed a lot throughout history.

Speaker 1:

You know, ever since their exile to Babylon, it's gone pretty poorly for them.

Speaker 2:

There's been a few negatives along the road, yeah Anyway, but no one of the last books I read. Actually, and I think a lot of people to your point of drawing parallels a book recommendation on this would be in the garden of the beast.

Speaker 2:

Good, we haven't had one for a while, so yeah, the garden of the beast is, um, literally taken from the diaries of the ambassador and his family. Uh, in pre-world war ii, nazi germany. And it goes through kristallnacht, it goes through night of the long knives, and all this and it's uh told from uh, very interesting account the united states us during the 1930s.

Speaker 1:

Yep, yeah, yeah, that would be interesting.

Speaker 2:

I might actually read that yeah, if you haven't read it, it's very good. It's very good.

Speaker 1:

So the yeah and again, obviously I'm I, some they probably in here cause it's fun, but yeah.

Speaker 2:

You're giving me a lot of shit for no reason that you don't really mean. I gotcha.

Speaker 1:

I know I think it's enjoyable dude. So point being is, if we were to summarize our position in a couple of sentences, mine is. I think my position on this is exactly what it was with BLM. It sucks that it didn't happen during BLM that those quote-unquote protesters which we all know we're a lot more than protesters. They were doing physical harm to property and a lot of people individually as well, and nothing happened. And we are fast on our way to having the exact same scenario here. So I'm kind of glad that for change. I wish he would have done it with BLM. He didn't, but at least he's doing it now. We're talking about Abbott specifically in Texas. Your position is what?

Speaker 2:

My position is okay. My position is they should have enforced the laws against those BLM BLM protesters who were being violent, committing crimes and so on. I think they should do so today. I don't think the ignoring ofjugation of these is right either. I think it's actually a much narrower scope than that, and that's my stance then. That's my stance now.

Speaker 1:

Okay, Well, I mean by those two. We're actually very close together, but I just think that it's even the clock that's broken is right twice a day and in this case, Abbott being the broken clock, I think it's 12 o'clock for him.

Speaker 2:

Hey, Gene, hey, you're being an ableist now why is that?

Speaker 1:

what am I in a wheelchair? I'm a broken clock I'm giving you shit that was pretty funny I forgot he was in the wheelchair I guess I don't, I don't see color that way, so I'm sorry yes, I'm blind against wheelchairs clearly, clearly, yeah, I just i't know. I just see him as a dude with a head profile on Twitter. That's all I see Uh-huh. And he's made plenty of bad decisions for Texas over the years, so he's actually kind of a crappy governor.

Speaker 1:

But again it's like if somebody take somebody who is a horrible person, like how much do you want? To bet he runs for president in 2028? He won't oh yeah, I don't think he will. He's, you know fdr dude, fdr did he wasn't the lamey when he ran, was he? Yeah, really, oh, yeah, fdr, when he? No, no, he was in a wheelchair, he was in a wheelchair he could stand on his own, but he couldn't really walk. He was yeah, very much. Lame.

Speaker 2:

Abbott doesn't stand on his own, no, but there but he's already in the public and it's not the same thing as today, but in fact I think he would use it to his advantage well, I he's like he's got too many things going. Hey, one last thing while we're on the Jews and the Nazi talk right now anyway, the. Jews? Yeah, did you see, tony Gonzalez?

Speaker 1:

Like more recently than three, four days ago, we talked about him. Yeah, like yesterday.

Speaker 2:

Calling a bunch of conservatives and everybody Nazis and KKK members.

Speaker 1:

I know he said that about.

Speaker 2:

No, no, no. He expanded upon it and he said some more stuff. Yes, he doubled down and he's getting.

Speaker 1:

How does this guy get elected as a Republican?

Speaker 2:

He's about to not dude, he just fucking imploded. All the Republicans are now against him.

Speaker 1:

Fucking A man. That's fucked up shot himself on the foot yeah, I mean, I think the only reason that he probably ran as a republican is because he wanted to get the catholic vote yeah, yeah, no, in.

Speaker 2:

You know this, uh, historically, before he got elected, was actually a pretty strong democratic uh area. Um, what I will say, though, is I based off of what's happening here lately and the way tony is going out and talking. Brandon has one hell of a good shot you could win.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, that would be awesome oh my god, it's in the like. The meme machine will be at full power for the next two years. Yes, or longer.

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Speaker 1:

I would love to see a sitting representative putting out meme review videos.

Speaker 2:

Yes, you know what? I would love to see a sitting representative take a, since he's licensed, take a fully automatic weapon into the house while he's going on the floor to give the speech and say this is what it really is yeah, yeah, do a little training session. It's like, yeah, exactly, just go to the house floor during a debate and say that here's your training session for the week.

Speaker 2:

It's just so you are aware yeah, it's too bad he was not running for senate, because otherwise he could literally filibuster by doing gun training which would be how fun would that be that'd be awesome that would be something else yeah, well, you know, maybe after he's done with congress he can run for the senate right you know, herrera, for president, and whatever year it ends up being I don't know, because I don't think he's is he old enough yet? I don't know for what president? I don't know if he's 36.

Speaker 1:

He's over 35. I don't know. Well, we can look it up real fast. I'm pretty sure he is. He's certainly a more public figure at this point than he was before.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I can't wait to see Herrera run against AOC for the presidency.

Speaker 1:

He was born in 95. What does that make him? Yeah, so can't wait to see Herrera run against AOC for the presidency.

Speaker 2:

He was born in 95.

Speaker 1:

What does that make him? Yeah, so there you go. Well, how old is that? I don't know how old that is 2005 would be 10.

Speaker 2:

2015 would be 20.

Speaker 1:

Yeah.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, so he's not old enough yet. Okay, next election.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, he's 28,. I guess, yeah, shit, he's 28,. I guess, yeah, he's younger than he looks. Yeah, he looks like he's in his mid-30s. Honestly, yeah, well he's not. He's got some gray hair coming in his beard.

Speaker 2:

Dude, I've got some gray hairs too, Showing up in really interesting places yeah.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, we don't need to hear about that.

Speaker 2:

You know they do sell a. Uh, joe. Joe rogan had a great bit a long time ago about your body stopping making ball hair color to focus on keeping this dude alive.

Speaker 1:

Highly recommend it uh, what ball hair color a product you're pitching.

Speaker 2:

That was that one no, the joe rogan special. I think it was space monkeys or whatever makes that joke it's hilarious yeah he is into monkeys that's for sure. Yeah, did you. By the way, did you watch the tucker uh tucker carlson on rogan?

Speaker 1:

I watched a part of it. I did not watch the whole thing tucker is a shitty guest, is he so? He's better at being the questioner than the questionee yes, but I will say they ended up.

Speaker 2:

The first half of it is just yeah hard to watch, the second half much better okay when they start getting to into building seven, when they start talking about a lot of other things, it gets way better so I haven't gotten to that yet.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, I've just seen the early, early bit. Um, yeah, it's. Uh, I I think tucker is a weird dude. Dude, because there's certain aspects which are extremely like typical east coast new york kind of attitude his laugh alone, dude a lot of people don't like it.

Speaker 1:

I don't care about it. But then certain other aspects are like he's totally a conspiracy guy. So there's um it. It is an interesting mix and I I totally see why he ended up on um, you know, as the main dude on fox, because I think he still is like East coast formal enough to be on there. They don't want some Joe Hick being on Fox, they want somebody that's more of an East coastie.

Speaker 2:

Yeah.

Speaker 1:

One of them Yankees.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, well he. You know, a lot of people think he's the Emmanuel Goldstein.

Speaker 1:

Uh yeah, but I think that's a typical thing that anybody that kind of starts to break out. They say that about.

Speaker 2:

They say the same thing about um uh vivek yeah, and by the way, for those who don't know, it's a 1984 reference yeah, so I thought you're just poking fun at more Jewish people, like you normally do hey, I didn't write the book, dude, and you know I literally am working for a company that's in, that's founded out of the IDF, so there you go.

Speaker 2:

Yes, so we should probably be careful about what they let you say uh well, if you can't tell, based off of my opinions expressed in this podcast, no one tells me what the fuck to say of your employer or any other people that may or may not have a financial relationship to you yeah, we'll just put that disclaimer at the end of the show then yeah but uh, yeah, let us know guys what you think of the new theme song.

Speaker 1:

It's uh, it's got words rather than just music like your old theme song. And, most importantly, I can stop paying a monthly fee for renting that theme song. You were paying him. I thought you paid out right for it. Well, I paid for a year in advance, but it's a monthly fee. It's a perpetual monthly fee forever, fuck that so yeah, this is better. The cool. Thing is.

Speaker 2:

Uh, we still have the old ones that secret agent Paul did too.

Speaker 1:

Oh, yeah, yeah. Well, the the cool thing about using the hosting company that we do Buzz, buzz, Buzz. What Buzzsprout? Yes, I was thinking Buzzfeed, but that's not it.

Speaker 2:

Buzz. What Buzzsprout? Yes, I was thinking Buzzfeed, but that's not it Buzzsprout, is they?

Speaker 1:

they will actually let you change your intro music separately from the recording of the podcast. Yeah, dynamic content dynamically replace it in all past episodes, so I don't have to pay that fee again. Yeah, it's pretty cool. Vegan. Yeah, it's pretty cool. All right, well, I got nothing else, just wanted to kind of record this little little bit of conversation, of discussion, uh, disagreement, whatever you want to call it that we had.

Speaker 2:

I think people will enjoy when we don't have everything we're completely agreeing on well, and you know, it's one of those things that this was a quick enough turnaround that we could do, and what what the hell? It's a bonus episode and you know what we miss episodes from time to time. So this is our way of giving back.

Speaker 1:

We do yeah, that's true.

Speaker 2:

We didn't even talk about the, uh, the gun stuff no, and I did go save that for later I did go to the range this last weekend good, good.

Speaker 1:

Well, we'll do that in our normally scheduled episode.

Speaker 2:

All right, Gene, We'll see you man Sounds good.

Debate on Civil Liberties and Protests
Debate on Law Enforcement and Ethics
Discussion on Bias, Liberty, and Association
Political Discussion and Speculation
Bonus Episode Recording Discussion