← The Tara Palmeri Show
The Tara Palmeri Show
Did Political Rhetoric Fuel Charlie Kirk’s Death? Cenk Uygur vs. Shemeka Michelle
01:21:23
Loading summary
Transcript200 lines
- [00:02]
A
Welcome back to the Tara Palmieri Show. Since the tragic death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, I have experienced something that I have never felt before. Almost every conversation I've had with friends, acquaintances, colleagues, even family, just circles back to him. His death is almost like a mirror reflecting people's deepest insecurities and anger. And for me, it hit particularly close because I'm a journalist, and I wrote in my substack newsletter, the Red Letter, what it was like to interview him and how his publisher set the interview up by provoking me, sending me passages from his book that argue that women who are over 30 and are not married and don't have children have essentially expired. At the time I was 37, I had no children. I was not married. And yet I decided that I wanted to interview him. I wanted to hear from a man who had so much influence in the MAGA movement, a man who was an advisor to the then candidate, Donald Trump. And I wanted to break down information silos. I really care about listening to people who have different points of views and whether I agree with them or not. But the bigger point of the piece is that I argue that he had the right to have these offensive positions, not just about women, about black people, lgbtq, without fearing for harm for his life. Well, instead, a lot of people just didn't see that story that way. In fact, I had random family members, distant ones and close ones, come out of the woodwork to dismiss it. One of them dismissed it entirely, saying that my audience is middle aged women and soy boys, which also just triggered me to the memories of misogyny that I grew up with and made me question my own existence and how it unsettles people. But Charlie Kirk had that effect. He had such a narrow box on what was acceptable. He provoked, and he continues to provoke after his death. My black friend reminded me that his disdain for Martin Luther King Jr. Calling him awful, you know, was incredibly offensive. And she even said, this is what it's like for us. We have our sons die all the time and nobody cares. And while some members of my family just said, he's a good Christian and he's been unfairly maligned, online, I was attacked for not fulfilling my narrow role as woman and not passing on my DNA. Called pathetic for not doing that. And yet how deeply it all offended me, I would fight for the right of all of these people to speak and to be heard and to do so without fear. And that's why today's conversation matters. Because Charlie Kirk's life and now in his death, have exposed the raw fault lines in our culture, the rage, the devotion, the despair, often all at once. And it forces us to ask, when political speech turns into political warfare, where do we draw the line? To help me answer that, I've invited two strong voices who don't often agree. Cenk Uygur, a progressive commentator, founder of the Young Turks Network and a longtime critic of the right's use of rhetoric to mobilize fear and anger. And I've got Shamika Michelle, a conservative commentator known for her unapologetic takes on culture and politics, and a voice that challenges both the left and the establishment right. Thank you both for joining the show.
- [03:46]
B
Thank you.
- [03:46]
A
I, I want, yeah, I just want to dive in here because I'm sure you have so much to say. What were your initial reactions when you had heard that Charlie Kirk had been shot in front of all of these students at a university in Utah in such a brutal way?
- [04:07]
C
I'll go first. I, I was shocked. That's not surprising. Everybody was shocked. I was horrified and I, I was in disbelief. So I, I understood that he got shot. But where I really tripped into disbelief was when I heard that he had died. Now, I, I, at that point we already knew that it was a neck shot and that it was really bad, right? But I just, I couldn't believe that he died. I couldn't believe it because, so I, I have an experience that's slightly different than other people because I've met Charlie a bunch of times. I've debated him, I've interviewed him, we've done different, you know, shows and conferences together, etc. I met his wife. And so as much as I disagreed with what Charlie said, it felt like that was a, someone who was in my life and, and now they're never going to be there again. And so, look, we'll get into this, but I think violence is the dumbest, worst thing you could possibly do. I mean, number one, it's immoral. If you're on the left and you do violence, you don't understand what it means to be on the left. We're supposed to be the ones with empathy. And it doesn't mean that the right doesn't have it. It just means that certainly the left has claimed to have empathy, and so this is the exact opposite of that. And violence is intellectual surrender. And now you'll never be able to be Charlie Kirk in a debate because he's not here to debate you anymore. And, and so he's going to go out on top and, and it's just counterproductive immoral, disgusting in every way. And, and I hate the. This, the sign of surrender that it puts out, let alone the fact that you got two. I mean, the most important part, of course, is that you've got two young kids, a three year old, one year old and his wife that are now alone. I just, I. And I'm worried, of course, about the future too. This is just the exact wrong direction for our country to go.
- [06:07]
A
Yeah. What was it like for you, Shamika?
- [06:09]
B
For me, I was initially, I was hopeful because I hadn't seen the video. And I remember being in high school and someone that I knew, a female, she was shot in the neck and she survived, and she has no handicaps or anything because of it. So at first I just was very hopeful, and then once I saw the actual video, my hope began to go down a bit. But I just initially was very hopeful that he would actually make it through. My daughter was the one that asked, mom, what's happening with Charlie Kirk? I had no idea at the time. And I said, what are you talking about? She said, trump team posted Pray for Charlie Kirk. And I'm seeing people in the comments saying that there's no way with all that blood he could have made it. So she is the one who actually alerted me. She's 20 years old and she followed Charlie Kirk. So initially I was just hopeful, trying to tell her, well, I knew someone who was shot in the neck and they survived. But once I saw the video, my hope began to wane a little bit. And once they said he was dead, I was angry. As someone who goes out myself to speak, who had just set at a debate table two weeks prior to this happening, I was angry because I expect people to be emotional or irrational. I never really think someone would want me dead simply by what I'm saying. And I would say probably 85% to 90% of what Charlie Kirk would say I agree with and probably stand on those same principles. So to just think there's so much hate out there for those types of things is just. It really disgusts me.
- [08:04]
A
Yeah, I mean, it's. It has a lot of people wondering, is our rhetoric simply passionate political speech or is it creating the conditions for violence? What do you think?
- [08:16]
B
Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Go ahead. I apologize.
- [08:21]
C
Okay. All right, I'll. I'll go real quick. So, look, I'm worried about both things. I'm significantly worried about the violence. And this is a very unusual assassination. It's an assassination of a media figure rather than a political figure. And I don't know if it's unprecedented, I haven't studied the history of it, but it certainly is unprecedented in our lifetimes. And so now we all have to be on guard for what comes next. And there's a lot of rage out there. And so that's the one hand, and that's that hand is very strong and very, you know, powerful. And you should be very concerned about that level of violence and how that's not how we settle debates in America. Now, on the other hand, it would be deeply ironic if Charlie Kirk's death was used to take away the thing he cared most about in his life, which is free speech. So you can't start saying, okay, well now one side is not allowed to say this or the other side is not allowed to say it, or either side is not allowed to say it. You're not allowed to say, fight like hell. You're not allowed to say, you know, we're going to beat him. I don't know. I don't know. But this, the idea of cracking down on free speech, which Representative Clay Higgins suggested and some others on the right have suggested afterwards, I mean, the fact that they can't see that, that's deeply ironic is amazing to me. So I would not be in favor of that. But we've got to be responsible as leaders in media and politics to cool things down and stop hating the other side so much. I want to talk about that more as we go on.
- [10:01]
A
Yeah. A new poll shows that 42% of Gen Z believe that hate speech justifies violence.
- [10:08]
C
Insanity. I'll let Shamika go first.
- [10:12]
B
Yeah, I definitely think that's insanity, but I think it comes directly from the home. As I said, I have a 20 year old, I have a 22 year old and a 29 year old and they don't think that way. And I think that's a direct result of how they were raised and the fact that they all went to college and still weren't radicalized because of how they were raised and the fact that I stay in touch with them, I talk to them typically on a daily basis and they just have really strong morals and values. When it comes to rhetoric, I would say I am an equal opportunity insulter. Like I'm going to typically insult somebody in some. Some way. I bring facts and ins insults. But I think the difference is when you kind of label people with things that you know will be inflammatory to a group of people, that goes a bit too far. I don't like when people are just labeled as Nazis, when they literally are not. I don't like when people are labeled racist when they aren't. And I think that as media people, we do have to be a bit more cognizant of what we're saying just by putting general labels on people that we know will get people worked up and emotional. And I'm almost sick of seeing the word racist when I do feel like there was a time racism was going down. Now every time I turn around, something is racist. Every time I turn around, I'm seeing someone say, oh, this white woman said something about my hair. That's a microaggression. She's racist. I'm sick of seeing that. It literally, to me, takes the actual meaning and. And the importance of the word. When you just toss it around and use it for everyone, for every single thing, it doesn't mean the same. It's like the boy that cried wolf, and I'm sick of hearing it.
- [12:14]
A
What do you think, though, of the offensive things that Charlie Kirk has said about people that don't fit into the box that he thinks is, you know, an ideal society, Christian, white, national kind of lifestyle? You know, he has made comments that are anti transgender, anti lgbtq. He's made comments, many, many comments that are perceived as misogynistic against women who are unmarried, who don't put children and being a wife before their career. He's, you know, suggested that they are expired after a certain age. He said that he would question a black pilot and said, you know, I would wonder if that person has, you know, the right training or if they were a DEI pick. He said Martin Luther King Jr. Was an awful man. Like, he's made a lot of comments that are offensive to a lot of people. Not to say that that in any way should lead to him, that does not leave him in any way exposed to violence. But you could understand, I think, why some people would feel very offended by him. Right?
- [13:28]
B
Offended is one thing, but labeling it as hate speech to me is something totally different. I could be offended by someone who eats pork as someone who hasn't had pork in 30 years. Don't put a rib in front of me, but I'm not going to think that you hate me simply, you know, for such a small thing. Honestly, everything.
- [13:49]
A
But what if you were out there and you said, pork eaters are disgusting people and they are living a life in sin? Because that's essentially what Charlie was trying to say in some ways about certain groups of people.
- [14:03]
B
I think when it comes to Charlie, Charlie is a Bible Believer. And so most people that believe in the Bible do think homosexuality is a sin.
- [14:12]
C
So.
- [14:13]
B
So why be offended with Charlie? Don't be offended with Charlie, Be offended with the person that wrote the Bible or be offended with God?
- [14:20]
A
I think that, you know. But would Jes. Jesus say that Martin Luther King Jr. Was an awful person? Would he question why a person received a job? Would he. Would he say that women who are not married, that are of a certain age, don't have children, are less valuable in society than others?
- [14:38]
B
Would he say it or would his word point to it? If Martin Luther King was in adultery and he was having orgies and he had a wife, I think that that would actually speak more to his character. Yes. Did Martin Luther King do some good things that people would agree with? I. Absolutely. But if he was an adulterer and he was having orgies and he was cheating on his wife, I think there are people that could come to the conclusion that he wasn't that great of a person. So I don't think unless you worship.
- [15:13]
A
President, you could make the same argument about Trump, who's been accused of adultery.
- [15:18]
B
You could make the same argument about Trump. The difference is Trump was not a reverend standing in the pulpit while he said it. There is a certain qualification that you should have or a certain lifestyle that you should live if you're standing in the pulpit preaching to people. So now I guess it's also, I.
- [15:37]
A
Come back to, like, don't throw stones when you don't live in a glass house. Like, and also, like, Jesus, wasn't he all about accepting people? Mary Magdalene, he let her wash his feet like he was, you know, she was considered a prostitute at the time. Like, he accepted people.
- [15:54]
B
He never accepted the lifestyle. That's two different things. You can be kind to people. I'm kind to all people. I don't have to agree with the lifestyle. And I think that's where the left or people on the left or. Or people who aren't really following the Christian doctrine or the Bible or whatever you want to say, they get confused. They think because you disagree with the lifestyle, and this is on both sides, honestly, they think because you disagree with the lifestyle that you have to be mean or condemn the actual person. I don't want to see anybody hurt. I have people who choose to live a different lifestyle from what I believe in. I hate to be that person. I have gay friends, but I do have gay friends. However, I disagree with their lifestyle. I think it's unnatural. They know how I feel about that. But we can all sit down and have a. Have a beer together or, you know, a drink together. It's not that big of a deal to the point where I would want to see them hurt or see them depressed. It's unnatural, according to someone who believes the Bible.
- [17:06]
A
I just. I think I. I'm thinking about this more and more as I see, you know, Charlie Kirk being eulogized in a lot of ways as a. As a saint right now. In some ways. I don't think we've seen a civilian receive this sort of, you know, honor from the President of the United States. We've got the Vice President of the United States hosting his podcast today. He's getting the post, humously, the Medal of Freedom. And a lot of it is because they say that, you know, Charlie Kirk was a Christian man. Cenk, what do you think? Are you Christian? Like, what do you think about what he preached and how he used that to justify a lot of his political positions?
- [17:50]
D
Yeah.
- [17:51]
C
So I'll tell you what I am and relate to my overall answer. So I was born Muslim, and my family's Muslim, and. And I lived as a Muslim till I was 22. Then I became an atheist, and I've been an atheist since then.
- [18:09]
D
Okay?
- [18:10]
C
So it's relevant in that there is a lot of offense that I could take from the comments that Charlie made or Shamika makes or tons of people, millions of people make.
- [18:23]
D
Right?
- [18:23]
A
Right.
- [18:24]
C
Both on the atheist side and on the Muslim side. And. And Charlie, of all the things that he said, probably the worst comments he made were about Islam and about how Islam was putting a sword to the throat of America, etc.
- [18:37]
D
Right?
- [18:37]
C
But here. Here's what I think. And this is perhaps counterintuitive. So what? So, and I say this to both sides, and let me be clear about it and spell it out. Okay? So the left is offended by statements from the right, including from Charlie, about LGBTQ Islam, this, that, and other thing.
- [18:58]
D
Right.
- [18:59]
C
Black folks on the. The pilot line was the line that really triggered people the most, actually, in my experience, that Charlie said on the right, as Shamika just told you, they're deeply offended if you call them racists, fascists, Nazis, etc.
- [19:15]
D
Right.
- [19:17]
C
And I would say to both sides, so what? Okay, so Charlie didn't agree with Islam. Okay. And he said bad things about Muslims. Okay, then what happened? Did I melt? I didn't melt.
- [19:28]
D
Okay.
- [19:29]
C
Did I. Did I cease to exist? No, I did not cease to exist. Okay, so then I could say things back. I could say, oh, did you know that 2 billion Muslims on the planet are also human, okay? And then we go back and forth, right? So of all the things that the right says, and Shamika is kind of referring to it here, actually, I'm most offended by the comments about LGBTQ people, okay? Even though I'm not in that group, I'm straight. And the reason why I'm most offended by that is because there's nothing they could do about it. So you just. They're born gay or whichever category they're in, and then people come and tell them, you were born wrong, you were born wrong. God hates you, or he doesn't hate you, but he hates everything you do. And so I can't stand that. And so what I do about that is I fight back verbally, rhetorically, politically. And we try to win the argument. We try to win the debate. We try to convince more people to be on our side. Obviously, you don't do that by causing violence on the other side, because then you lose the moral high ground. It makes it actually harder to win the argument. If you use violence, it makes your side more illegitimate. So anyone who's using violence on the right or the left is actually hurting their own side tremendously in the battlefield of ideas, let alone the fact that they're cowards and usually mentally insane, etc. Etc. Now, good to go to the right wing. Okay? So Donald Trump does things that appear to be authoritarian all the time. He violates due process. After 2020, not only, you know, did he encourage the riots. Not only did his chief of staff tell him that his vice president might be murdered, and he said he deserved it, which is stunning. Unbelievable. I don't know why. That's not the thing that everybody focuses on when it comes to the president. But after the election, he said we should terminate the Constitution. To me, these are. And then he's constantly trying to bring military into the streets, etc.
- [21:15]
D
Right?
- [21:15]
C
So these are very militaristic, authoritarian tendencies.
- [21:19]
D
Okay?
- [21:21]
C
So if you. I can call them authoritarian. I can call him fascist. Fascist, or give me another word and I'll call it that.
- [21:26]
D
Okay?
- [21:27]
C
But then the right wing gets super offended. Okay, well, brother, first of all, don't do authoritarian things, and then you won't get called authoritarian.
- [21:34]
D
Right?
- [21:35]
C
But secondly, now you're telling the left wing not to get offended by all the comments you're making about black people, Muslim people, gay people, et cetera. But the minute the left makes a comment about you, you get offended, and then you go to, ok, we got to shut down that speech. No, we're not shutting. Like, if I have it my way and America has it the way of the Constitution, the First Amendment, and we stick to what America is, then you can get offended all day long, brothers and sisters. It doesn't matter. We're not shutting down free speech. We're not shutting it down on the left or the right. So. And, and like, I just keep wanting to say, and so what? And so what? Okay. Oh, he's said terrible things about Martin Luther King. Yes, he did. I love Martin Luther King. He's my role model. He's my hero of heroes, etc. Okay, so Charlie doesn't like him and said bad things. So what? I can't. I can't understand why people then say, okay, we have to shut it down. Well, did you think that people were only going to say pleasant things throughout your entire life? Did you think that people were only going to say things you agree with and that you find to be comfortable? No. The whole point of the First Amendment is sometimes you're going to make each other uncomfortable. It doesn't protect popular speech. It protects unpopular speech. So that's why we both have to get even.
- [22:56]
A
Offensive speech. Even offensive speech, absolutely.
- [23:00]
C
The point of the First Amendment is not to protect speech about how cute puppies and babies are. The point of the First Amendment is to protect offensive speech. And by the way, the people who take most offense, generally speaking, in society are the powerful, and the powerful are the first to go. Nope, not. That's it. Shut it down. I'm offended. Shut it down. And I think a lot of people on our side for a long time didn't realize that we were the powerful. And then we, we got to a point where we tried to end the debate. And I. I disagreed with that and that. And I was considered a heretic in a lot of ways because of that. I never thought that we should have canceled Megyn Kelly or any of those other guys. Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, et cetera. I defended all of their right to speech on college campuses and everywhere else. Because once you have power, the first thing you want to do is shoot. Shh. Don't let the other side talk. I despise that. And it's un American.
- [23:54]
B
Right.
- [23:54]
A
And it questions your power. It rocks your authority. But, Cenk, what I'm hearing from you is that we are giving words too much power.
- [24:01]
C
Yes.
- [24:01]
A
Am I right?
- [24:02]
C
Yeah, absolutely.
- [24:05]
A
What do you think about that, Shamika?
- [24:07]
B
Yeah. I think in some ways we are giving words too much power. For sure. I just think when you actually say things like And I wouldn't have a problem with someone saying Trump is authoritarian. I don't have an issue with that. I have an issue when they say things like Trump is Hitler, when that's literally not the case. And I guess as someone who always says, you know, I shouldn't have to think for the person that's hearing it. Sometimes you do have to think for the person that's hearing it. We have to understand that there were people maybe in the slow class coming up or below grade level who can't comprehend certain things. So if, if they hear Trump is Hitler or even coming from the right, just putting a label on someone that, you know, is the, the people consider the scum of the earth. I think we have to be a little bit more responsible in that. But I am one of the people, more like jink, that says we are putting too much on words. I do want to go back to you, though. Tara's bringing up the pilot issue and the black, black pilot issue that Charlie Kirk referenced. I do want to say, in reference to dei, as a black woman, we heard Joe Biden say, I'm going to choose a black woman as my vice president. When you put that or lead that with the top qualification, for me, that would be offensive. I would prefer my top qualification to be what my qualifications actually are. Opposed to what's between my legs or.
- [25:53]
C
The trip planner by Expedia. You were made to outdo your holiday, your hammocking and your pooling. We were made to help organize the competition. Expedia made to travel color of my skin.
- [26:10]
B
So we hear so many times, people putting that first, I'm going to put a black woman on the Supreme Court. You should always lead with merit. And then if that person happens to be a black woman, so be it. If it happens to be a black man, so be it. But when you lead with that as your top qualifications, it will make someone think, hey, when it comes to dei, is that what we're going after? I saw the, the chief of police hear say I want to increase the police force, I think by 30%. I want those to be women. Well, as someone that lives in the city, I don't want that to be the top qualification for someone who is going to protect and serve. So I just think when people lead with that, they have to understand that it doesn't send a good message. So when it comes to dei, I, I completely understood the context of what Charlie was trying to say. Not that he had an issue with black men or black people.
- [27:16]
A
Well, I think part of The DEI program is to try to include voices and people who have different life perspectives and they do actually add value. And maybe they don't have the sort of ends to those sort of positions because of their life experience.
- [27:36]
B
Qualification should still be if they're qualified. And that's what a lot of people.
- [27:41]
A
Get jobs, though, Shemeika, that are not qualified. I mean, that's been my experience in life. I find out the number of people that get into top universities, top jobs, and you find out so much of it was through their network, through their parents, through patronage. It's, you know, so much of life is really set up for you based on things that are outside of your control.
- [28:04]
B
Right. But so then you fight so that it's married across the board. You don't then lower the standards and say, oh, well, this white person got in even though they weren't qualified, so let's let everybody get in because they aren't qualified. No, you fight, say they're not qualification. You just said there are people that get into positions that are not qualified.
- [28:28]
A
No, no, no, I didn't say that. I said there are a lot of people who are left out of positions not because they're not qualified, but because they don't have the connections to get into those roles. So then so much of life is about networking. And I think to suggest anything other than that, to suggest that life isn't about political connections, you know, just patronage generally growing up in the right system or in the right community around people who can make calls for you. I mean, how many people that go to the Ivy League schools really deserve to even get in there? I mean, that's a real question.
- [29:03]
B
You make the, the people deserving, that should still be the top qualification. These people deserve to be here based on what? GPA or any other things.
- [29:15]
A
Yeah, but the thing is, the kids that have those high GPAs, they go to the schools that teach them how to take the tests, they're in the feeder schools. The system is not designed. The way that our system works is to keep the people in power who are currently in power.
- [29:31]
C
Okay, let me jump in here on those two.
- [29:33]
A
I don't want to digress, but yeah, I think so.
- [29:36]
C
Just like, real quick on those two things. Look, so the DEI affirmative action issue is a good one as an example here.
- [29:46]
D
Right.
- [29:47]
C
So, funny enough, I, I actually agree more with Shamika. Okay. I think that I've been against affirmative action DEI for a long time. I, we needed affirmative action in the beginning. No question about it. Otherwise there's no way that black people could break into the jobs that were exclusively held by white folks who just genuinely wanted to pass it on to their kids. I get it. I. I understand why they did what they did, but we needed to allow other people to be able to access those jobs, too. But if you continue with DEI forever, what you're going to have is a society that judges each other based on the color of our skin and our background. And I don't want to be judged as a Muslim or an atheist or a Turk or anything like that. I want to be judged on the content of my character. And so we're constantly looking at each other through that lens. But, but more importantly. So that's that debate, right? But. But more importantly, if, to the point of this conversation, if we decide, hey, you know what, it's offensive to say that black people or Muslims or whoever doesn't deserve to be in these schools, so let's shut that down. Let's don't let them say that it's too offensive, then you've made a terrible mistake, because that's a debate we need to have. And then in that debate, I would say the same thing you're saying, Tara, when I now go to the other side and talk about the injustice from. From the perspective of class, right? And so I know there's no question that kids in the suburbs get trained for those SATs, and the kids who are poor don't.
- [31:11]
D
Right?
- [31:11]
C
And it makes a giant difference. And in fact, if you're going to get rid of affirmative action, it is imperative that you get rid of legacy admissions, right? So legacy admissions are at least a quarter of the school. It's if your papa or mama went to that school. And I've. And I did go to two Ivy League schools. And honestly, a lot of those kids are soft, weak, and they don't belong there.
- [31:33]
D
Okay?
- [31:34]
C
So if you said to me, oh, you're going to compete against a bunch of rich kids or a bunch of minorities, I'd say, give me the rich kids. They're the softest, weakest kids in the world. I'll rock their world.
- [31:46]
D
Okay?
- [31:47]
C
So. But let's have that conversation, because if you shut it down, then people get angrier and angrier instead of vet, instead of actually talking it through and coming to conclusion. As a society, even if 40% of the country, 45, 49 of the country doesn't like the conclusion, that's called democracy. We all need to grow up and understand that we're not always going to win and people are not always going to agree with us. So what?
- [32:16]
D
Right?
- [32:16]
C
So then you do the next argument and try to win. And then now real quick to address what Shamika said about Trump and Hitler. So I never called Trump Hitler and I never called him a Nazi. So Dave Rubin the other day on Piers Morgan read a bunch of misleading titles about how neo Nazis liked Trump or whatever, Right? But it wasn't calling Trump a Nazi now. But I did call him fascist and we had a debate on the, on the show about whether he was a fascist or not. What's the dividing line for me? So Nazi is you go and kill 13 million people, people, you know, 6 million Jews, 7 million others, polls, etc.
- [32:51]
D
Right.
- [32:53]
C
Fascist is authoritarian. Hey, I do not believe in liberal democracy. Not liberal as in politics, but as in a constitution and our system of government. Well, when you say I'm going to terminate the constitution, brother, I don't know what to call you. I mean, I guess I can call you authoritarian instead of fascist, but now we're splitting hairs. But the most important thing though is Shamika, you remember the guy, and there's many of these, but the one guy who went down to Texas and shot a bunch of Latinos because he'd gotten riled up by the anti immigrant talk, right? So I made a mistake at that time. I said, well that's the fault of the right wing media, Tucker Carlson and the others. They keep talking anti immigrant stuff. So this guy was a crazy, listens to that and then he does this instead. And now you're saying something that's very similar. Well, if people are calling him a Nazi or a fascist or Hitler or whatever it is, people are going to get riled at him up and some crazy guy's gonna do something. Yeah, but I, I, I think we're, we went in the wrong direction by saying, so we should shut Tucker up or we should shut up people further to the left of me, etc. No, people are, the shooters are responsible for their own actions. We can't take the very worst of us and then because of them apply a blanket rule that takes speech away from the rest of us. So that way the shooters win even more. So I don't want that. So if you think people are going over the line by calling Trump a Nazi or you think people are going over the line by calling immigrants criminals and rapists, yes, that's very painful on both sides. But we're going to need to get past it. We're going to need to grow up and we're going to need to be Americans. And otherwise we're going to shut down all speech and we can't have that.
- [34:35]
A
That's much worse and it festers, I would say. But I do you know, Jenk, something you've said before is that we should have a beer together with those we disagree with. Republican governor of Utah Spencer Cox, who's really been the face of all of this, considering that the shooting happened in his home in his state. He said that we have to find a way to disagree better. Do you agree with that?
- [35:01]
C
Yeah, definitely. Yeah. So the three rules, how. Okay, so here's. And this is honestly these days, this is more on up mice or until Charlie's shooting. It was more the fault of it lay more on our side. Now both sides are very angry. But let me explain. So the. The three rules I put out and I did this with Charlie at America Fest was number one, when we disagree, we fight. And we're all used to that one. Everybody knows rule number one, right. Number two is afterwards we get a beer. And number three is when we agree, we unite. Now, number three has hardly ever happened other than maybe Epstein files and beginning to happen on Israel.
- [35:44]
A
Barely. Yeah, I mean Charlie dropped it.
- [35:47]
C
I know, I know.
- [35:48]
A
Trump said there's nothing there.
- [35:50]
C
No, I know, I know. But the grassroots is uniting, right? And the grassroots is uniting on anti corruption. Thank God finally the politicians are crooks. And I'm. Both sides are beginning to realize that.
- [36:01]
D
Right.
- [36:02]
C
So but what was interesting about that, Tara, was that number one and number three didn't cause a lot of disagreement. Number two caused a lot of disagreement having a beer together afterwards. And it did not on the right. The right. Love that. I'm being honest and I'm telling you what I saw with my own eyes is about 99% of the right reaction. Both media and political figures and grassroots folks said yeah, that's great.
- [36:27]
D
Right?
- [36:27]
C
And on our side on the left. And this breaks my heart but a significant chunk, I don't know what the percentage is but it was a big number. Said no way, I'll never have a beer with those people. And that became then a meme like oh, is Cenk gonna have a beer with Charlie? Kirk is Jenkin have a beer with, you know, fill in the blank, Tucker Carlson, etc, Megyn Kelly, any especially after any time they said something that we disagree with that or would that we found offensive. And my answer to those on the left who say no, don't have a beer, don't talk to them, they're terrible, we should hate them is guys, we're against hate. And it's not just against minorities. Now we're hating based on political affiliation. We're hating based on ideology. Now you're saying it's okay to hate the right. And what I'm telling you is, no, that's not okay. It's especially if you're on the left, especially if you're the side that's supposed to be leading with empathy. It is not okay to hate the right wing. So you can hate what they said, you can fight back against what they said. And most importantly, there's a handful of us who are in media and politics. The great majority of the country are just regular, average voters. They didn't say those things. You don't know what they think they think in complicated ways. They don't all think alike. And most importantly, not everyone on the right is the most extreme figure that you saw online. On the right. Not everyone on the left is the most extreme figure you saw on the left. In fact, overwhelming majority on both sides, 90% on both sides, are good people trying to make their way in the world. And that aren't these divisive media and political figures. Stop hating each other. And yes, even if you're offended, you should have a beer with the person. So, and lastly, and maybe this comes from my Muslim background, because growing up Muslim in America, if I eliminated everyone who said something hateful or offensive about Muslims, I would have never had a meal with anyone. I never would have had a beer with anyone. Not to say that everybody hates Muslims, but there's a lot of misunderstandings, partly driven honestly by mainstream media. American media taught Americans to hate Muslims. And so because of that, that poison got into everybody's heads. So it's, it's unrealistic and it's not helpful. And the way I'm going to get someone past that is not by yelling at them or by censoring them, but by having a conversation with them until they go, oh, I get it, your mom and aunt are not terrorists. We were taught bs. No, you're of course Muslims are human like anyone else. Like you can't get there unless you had a conversation and unless you had a meeting of the minds at some point where you realize that both of you are human beings.
- [39:19]
A
I think it's really important for people to know you, to get to watch you, to choose to go outside of their media silo and understand you and see you as a human, to maybe observe the beer drinking aspect of it. I know that usually happens after the debate and it's like the Humanity piece that's sort of missing. It just feels like people are just throwing rhetorical grenades at each other, and it's. There's not a lot of humanity in it. And honestly, though, I have to say I have heard more aggressive language towards people that are different than them than. Than them in the past decade or so than I have ever. I mean, maybe we were polite before, but I just. It just feels like there is a sort of anger, a protection of who you are because you're afraid that that might be taken away from you or that that is at risk or at danger. And I wonder if it's the rhetoric that makes us feel like our. That we are living in a place where there is an existential threat, that the way that we choose to live, we no longer be a free. We may. May no longer live that way freely. She. What do you think about that?
- [40:34]
B
I do think that there is concern for not being able to live that way freely. I would say I am one of those people that there are very fine people on both sides, regardless of the group of people that we're talking about. I will say that up until Charlie's death, I do feel like I was open to still having relationship with people on the other side. And maybe I'm just still now in this angry place, But I don't think the left or the other side are the empathetic people. I haven't experience that. I think they are as long as you dis. As long as you agree with them. But the moment they feel like someone like myself, a black person, disagrees, they become very. Vow and. And. And hate. Hateful towards me. And so up until I saw what happened to Charlie Kirk, I was very open still to having those relationships. Now I'm almost at this place where, say, you know, I don't want to have a beer. I don't want to agree. I don't want to sit down and talk. Because if this is how you feel about someone who says something different and you can actually cheer for their death, I don't want to talk to you. And I actually had a friend after we've been friends for decades, just because she was going to vote for Kamala and I was going to vote for Trump, she started to question our friendship just for that reason alone. And I was still open to, you know, having a friendship with her because we had experienced so many things together. Infidelity, death. I mean, just holding hands through years of being friends. And so just because we were on two political sides, it made you question whether or not, we could be friends after. After knowing what you know about me and who I am as a person. And then to see what I'm seeing from some people just celebrating his death. I. I may be at the point where I don't want to have that relationship because I just. I don't like what I'm seeing. So, again, maybe I'm just still angry. It hasn't quite been a week yet, but that's how I feel.
- [43:02]
A
I mean, everyone I've spoken to has had a really visceral reaction to this, but even the president, President Trump, he immediately came out and blamed radical liberals for this, putting a target on them. It doesn't feel like he's creating an environment for any sort of healing. What do you think about that?
- [43:21]
B
I do feel like some of the rhetoric pushed it. I mean, and people can say all day long that the left hasn't been saying, get up in their face. Don't let him go. Eat peacefully. We saw Maxine Waters say this so many times. I've seen put up, put a bullet in Donald Trump. I've seen, I've seen all of this talk. So when you talk about that Trump said Mike Pence deserved to be, to be killed or whatever, I'm absolutely against that as well. But I have seen a lot from the side of the left. And my problem is they lie about it and say, oh, we haven't said this. I saw Jasmine Crockett just on the Breakfast Club saying, I want you to show me a Democrat who said something hateful. And it's clear, like, how did you miss that? I don't like the, the lies about it. And so I do think the left has said a lot of hateful things and just own it. Everybody should just own it and say, you know, I could have said something different or said it a different way, but I definitely agree speech should not be censored at all. But please, at least take accountability for what you're saying. And I think that side just never wants to take accountability.
- [44:45]
A
Cenk, I have a question for you. How do progressives avoid following, falling into this, like, same trap of dehumanizing their opponents when emotions are high?
- [44:56]
C
Well, I mean, on the Young Turks, we try to, you know, battle that idea of dehumanizing the other side. And it's a tough, long slog, to be honest. And, and it's because we're all blind. We're blinded by our bias. I've sort of, you know, I questioned all my assumptions, expectations, and biases a while back and found Out. Oh yeah, I've got a lot of bias, right. And I became more cognizant of it. It. And at least I stopped being blind to it.
- [45:28]
D
Right.
- [45:29]
C
And. But when I go to talk to others again, sorry, but on both sides, I, I see folks who are so blind and they can't see straight. So, for example, on the left, we're against hate, right? And I'm super proud of that. And then we hate the right wing and we think that doesn't count. No, it does count. It does count. So you can. Again, I'm not saying you have to agree with their ideology. I don't agree with their ideology. I fight their ideology for a living.
- [45:58]
D
Right.
- [45:59]
C
But once you give in a hate, you're. There's. It's a dead end. You're never going to get out of it. And as I've told the story many times on the show, when I was growing up, as I told you earlier, Martin Luther King was my hero. And I used to listen to all of his speeches. And, and in one of the speeches, the only line I never understood when I was younger was because I was much more bellicose, imagine me being more Bellagos. But when he said hate can never drive out hate, only love can. And I thought, well, that sounds soft, right? I don't know about that. Let's go fight the other side.
- [46:37]
D
Right?
- [46:38]
C
And by the way, Martin Luther King Jr. Got assassinated. So hate won in that regard.
- [46:43]
D
Right?
- [46:44]
C
But now I get it. And that's why he's such a great man. Not just because he was so brave, but because he was so wise. And so if you give in a hate, it just creates more and more hate and more division. That's just a fact and we all know it. The more you hate the right wing, the more they hate you, the more you hate them. And on and on it goes. But the minute that you open yourself up to the possibility of love, and what that means is empathy, that maybe that person is a little bit like me. Maybe, maybe I should empathize with them and have a little space.
- [47:14]
A
Charlie Kirk didn't like that word. He thought it was a new age word.
- [47:18]
C
Yeah, empathy, yeah, I got you. But to be fair to him, that entire quote, yeah, the first part sounds terrible and, and it's half terrible. But then later in that quote, he talks about it shouldn't be empathy, should be sympathy. Okay, that, that's not as bad. Okay. And I can disagree a little bit.
- [47:36]
A
More like pity sometimes when I hear sympathy.
- [47:38]
C
Right, yeah, no, I get it. That's why I don't fully agree with the quote, right? But it's not as bad as saying screw empathy or sympathy or caring about other human beings.
- [47:47]
D
Right?
- [47:47]
C
And so, and even if he did, even if it was the, the quote not taken out of context, again, I would say, so what? So that, okay, Charlie thought that I think this, okay? And that's why Charlie and I debated all the time. So, but, and you see it in Shamika now, now she's worried about having a beer. Now before the left was worried, now the right is worried and don't want to do it anymore. But if we don't see each other as fellow human beings and fellow Americans, we're never going to get past this, right? So I'm worried about us as a nation and I think that we've forgotten how to disagree civilly and not give in to the hating the other side. And so. Okay, last thing on the bias. Let's take an issue that has nothing to do with any of this. Israel. Israel. Okay, now here's a situation where, you know, you say anything against Israel and the Israeli side will say, anti Semite, he hates Jews, we. And because he hates Jews, we hate him forever. And by the way, maybe he should be killed next. I've gotten more death threats from the pro Israel side than all other death threats combined in my life, okay. Which is, by the way, a massive number number.
- [49:02]
D
Okay?
- [49:04]
C
So now on the other hand, when you say to people, when the folks defend Israel, our side goes, oh, so you're pro genocide and I hate you, okay? And I mean if there, if ever there was a reason to hate someone, it's because they're pro genocide, right? But at the same time, I know that the folks who love Israel are blind mind. They think they believe it in their hearts. They're not weirdo evil people. They believe in their hearts that Israel is the most saintly moral nation on earth and the only reason anyone would ever criticize it is because they have a maniacal hatred of Jews. That's what they were taught. They were brainwashed into believing that and they believe it a hundred percent. So I'm choosing not to hate them because I know that they're blind, right? And I would hope that they would do that likewise. And I know they won't. I know that the next time I criticize Israel, that contingent is going to say, you're an anti Semite, I hate you and, and we should shut you out up one way or another, right? But nevertheless, I'm going to treat them as humans. Because they are humans. I'm going to treat them, you know. Yes. Harshly in the battlefield of ideas. Very harshly. Anybody who knows me knows that when we get into an actual debate, I am the. I'm not a wilting flower. I can be very, very aggressive.
- [50:24]
D
Right.
- [50:25]
C
But at the same time, I'm not going to dehumanize them. If all I did at the end of a debate was to get you to hate people inside Israel, then I failed because that all it does is it increases the cycle of hatred. At some point we have to love the Israelis and the Israelis, and this is the hard one, have to love the Palestinians. And once we do that, then we get to the solution. Otherwise all we're going to have is hate and violence.
- [50:48]
A
Bones, Shmika, do you think that commentators like yourself have an obligation to lower the temperature?
- [51:04]
B
No, I, I don't. I do think if you, you are saying lower it in being mindful as the labels that we put on people. Again, racist or Nazi. Yes, but actually.
- [51:20]
A
Or just any words that normalize hostility towards liberals and minorities.
- [51:27]
B
No, because I do feel like people are so weak nowadays. Coming up there was the saying, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. And we're just living in a generation now where so many people are offended by words. You just can't really gauge what's going to be extremely offensive as we've had in just this conversation. The idea that Charlie Kirk was racist, he had a problem with black people, or he was a misogynist, he had a problem with women. We have no idea what's going to be offensive. So, no, I don't want to carry that weight. But I will to a point of saying I'm not going to label someone a Marxist. That, that's, that would be a word, I guess, thrown around on the right without having proof. I may say they come across as if they agree with Marxist ideology. I could say that. So I do think, I don't think.
- [52:27]
A
We called him a racist or a misogynist. We said comments that he made it made were in that vein.
- [52:34]
B
Well, people have called him.
- [52:36]
A
We don't know how he feels deep in his heart about these things.
- [52:39]
B
People have. We only know what he said. Racist. People have called him a misogynist. So I'm saying as someone myself who is a commentator, I could actually, instead of just saying they're a Communist or they're a Marxist, I could say they have ideology that favors Marxism or favors the Communist Party. Maybe I would take on that responsibility. But actually Trying to water down how I feel to a point where I'm going to be tripping over my words because I'm afraid someone's going to be offended. No, I don't. I don't want to do that at all. So what about.
- [53:20]
A
What about fight back? What do you think about those. That kind of language, or this is the radical left, or, you know, the kind of stuff that we've heard from the president, like, do you feel that you should be using the same type of language?
- [53:35]
B
I don't mind. On either side, people saying, fight back in. Because. Because I am not. I didn't ride the short bus in school. I understand what they mean when they say fight back. Even when the left says fight back, I know that they're saying, stand up for your principles and stand up for what you believe in. They're not actually telling people to go out here and be violent. In comparison, though, to Maxine Waters saying, when you see them sitting in a restaurant, they get up in their faces, that's two totally different things. So I think, as someone who. Who's in positions of power or even in the media, I wouldn't tell somebody, if you see them sitting in a restaurant, go get up in their faces, that's different than fight back. So I think that we have to just be very aware of what we are saying. When you say I have to put a bullet in, or somebody needs to put a bullet in Donald Trump, well, there's no other way to take that, you know, so I just think that you should be mindful of what you're saying. But words like that fight back. I mean, it. It doesn't bother me from either side.
- [54:53]
A
Yeah, it should. Yeah. It should be noted, too, though, that when Nancy Pelosi's husband was attacked in his home, there was not a lot of sympathy either from the right. And it doesn't seem like when the violence happens on either side, there seems to be much sympathy. Although I have heard a lot of lawmakers on the left denouncing Charlie Kirk's death immediately. And as we know, Governor Shapiro, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, he had his house firebombed. It's not just conservatives who are being targeted. Want to ask you the same question I do.
- [55:29]
B
Can I please say I don't have an issue with people not mourning Charlie Kirk. I'm not saying that you have to mourn or be sad or even offer any words of condolences. You can just not care. My issue are the people saying, oh, don't just get him. Get his wife get his kids or saying that this is what he deserved, that would be my issue. But I'm not asking anybody to mourn. They don't know the man. I don't need sympathy or. He doesn't need sympathy or empathy from people that's. They're not obligated to do that. So that's not what I'm saying at all. Nobody has to offer any type of condolences on either side for anybody. But there's a difference in, in actually celebrating the death and wanting people to now get his kids and his, his wife.
- [56:21]
C
Life.
- [56:22]
A
That's, that's terrible. I haven't heard that, but that's a lot of sick people out there, unfortunately. Cenk, what do you think? Is it your responsibility to lower the temperature?
- [56:32]
C
So. It's a complicated answer. So first on, on how to handle Charlie's death, you don't have to eulogize or lionize, but you should sympathize and empathize. So if you say no, I'm never going to empathize with Charlie.
- [56:49]
D
Kurt work.
- [56:49]
C
Even after he's shot dead and his family's left behind. I worry about you. I, you know, I, I, if folks are thinking that way on our side, I, I, I worry about our humanity. So there's one thing to disagree. It's another thing to, to not mourn someone who was shot dead like that. That's, I mean, it's the easiest thing. The shoe on the other foot. Imagine if it was one of your own, how outraged you would be. How can you not empathize with the right who feels that outraged by it? And now here's, I mean, if, when.
- [57:25]
A
A journalist gets killed, like Adnan Khashoggi, there was incredible outrage, you know, Evan, Evan Gessernov. I'm saying his, I'm butchering his name. He was the Wall Street Journal photographer who was detained in Russia. Yeah, I mean, journalists, when our, when our, I guess our, our ranks, our, Our core gets attacked, we, we also rally behind them as well. So. I understand that.
- [57:56]
C
Yeah. I'm gonna just say it real quick and move on, but unless they're journalists murdered by Israel. Over 200 journalists murdered by Israel and barely a peep out of American media. So it's weird, it's grotesque. But, But I mourn them. I mourn Charlie because I mourn anyone who died while trying to do any form of media. That's not what we're supposed to do. Okay, so here's another issue, guys. So most right wingers, do. They see that Charlie made The comment about the black pilots, yeah, they see it, right? But they also, if they watch him regularly, see him say 99 other things on the left. We never see the 99 other things. The only thing we see is the most extreme comments that anybody ever made because those are the ones that are massively publicized. Same thing on the left. All you see, like for example, Shamika said, oh, they should get his wife and kids. I haven't heard that at all. But do I believe that one very few number of people might have said that online? Some randos? Yeah, I believe some crazy people might have said that. Do they represent the rest of the left? Not 1%. They wouldn't come close to 1% that.
- [59:06]
D
Right.
- [59:06]
C
But once somebody hears that, they go, that's it, that's the left. And I hate the left. Right, Same thing. On the right, you hear Charlie say one thing you hate, you don't hear the 90. And I'm not saying you'd agree with another 99 things, but the other 99 things are things that are more normal. That and appeal to the right wing in other ways, in non offensive ways, right? So when he talks about family life and Christianity and stuff, I might not agree, I'm an atheist, right. But I get that for a lot of people they're like, oh, that's good, that's wholesome, he's talking about my family, he's talking about my values, etc. So they view him as the guy who mainly talks about values, their values.
- [59:44]
D
Right?
- [59:45]
C
We mainly view him as a guy who said this, this and this, and we hate him for that. And you see how the media then drives that division, which then leads us to Maxine Waters and Trump, right? So Maxine Waters said a couple of things that she shouldn't have said, said. And, and, and when she said it, I was like, oh my God. Why, why, why do you, why are you saying that? That is not at all helpful, right? So now having said that, the reason that folks are getting into the face of politicians more these days is because we have no pressure valve released, right? So this, I talked a lot about this in, in the jubilee episode that I did. So if you don't release the pressure, Val, sure. It's going to build up, build up, build up and get to an ugly point like this. And actually the real underlying problem of all of this is that, is that our politicians are so corrupt, 95% of them take donor money and do only what the donors want. So, and they don't, they never talk to us, they don't care about their constituents. They don't care about their voters at all. All they care about is the rich elite donor class. And since we have no access to our own so called representatives, and since our own representatives on both sides betray us so regularly, what has happened is this great frustration and anger has built up in the country and we don't know where to put that frustration and anger. So we put it on our, on each other. And then the powerful win even more. This is the oldest trick in the book. You get white people in the south that are poor to hate other poor black people so they don't realize that they're both poor.
- [61:33]
D
Right?
- [61:34]
C
So that's from the slavery days. So these days, oh, the left should hate the right and the right should hate the left. And did you hear what they said? Did you hear what they said? Meanwhile, you're getting distracted when the real issue is up top. Look up, look up, look up, up. The donor class controls everything. And until we end the corruption, all there's going to be is more frustration, anger and rage. And then people are going to go, oh, especially the people in power. Oh, golly gee, I don't know where it came from. We should shut down any speech. Why? Because they don't want to be criticized. They want to solidify their power. So don't let them do that. And finally, that brings us back to Trump.
- [62:13]
D
Trump.
- [62:14]
C
So look, Bush was a disaster, and in a lot of ways, he was worse than Trump. The Iraq war got hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed. They brought back torture, warrantless wiretapping, etc. But after 9, 11, he tried to and largely did bring the country together. He then misused that unity.
- [62:35]
D
Right.
- [62:35]
C
But for that brief moment, we were united as a country. Country. So here was another great tragedy with the assassination of a media figure unlike anything we've seen in our lifetimes. And Trump took that opportunity not to bring us together, but to drive a bigger wedge between us and to get us to hate one another more. That is not helpful. Okay, you can call, I don't care about what name you call him, but it's inarguable that saying it's them and you should hate them is not unifying. It does not bring our better angels out. And it is not the message, the right message for today.
- [63:17]
A
So you're saying that he should maybe moderate his political speech?
- [63:21]
C
I'm saying both Maxine Waters and Donald Trump, the left and the right, should moderate their speech in terms of how much they hate the other side and how much of that hatred they put out into the the world, but at the end of the day, that's voluntary. I'm not going to make them do it. I'm not going to agree to the government saying, I know what is right and I'm going to shut the left up or I'm going to shut the right up. No. Okay. But if you're in media or politics, for God's sake, be responsible and try to put out a message of empathy instead of message of hatred, and not just based on racial or ethnic or gender background, but also based on ideology. You could, you know the old saying, you know, hate the sin, not the sinner. Okay, so I'm, I'm okay with you vehemently disagreeing with ideology. I do. I. I mean, again, if you've ever watched anything online, you know how vehement I can get on fighting back against ideology I don't agree with.
- [64:16]
D
Right.
- [64:17]
C
But don't hate the actual person. Otherwise we never get out of this mess.
- [64:23]
A
Yeah. Any final words, Shemeka, do you think that there's anything that your side of the political spectrum could do to make political debate less dangerous?
- [64:34]
B
I think everybody should stick to the facts, for sure. I will say one of the things that I disagree with Charlie on was the whole 1350, where he said would say 13% of the population commits 50% of the. The crime. We know that that wasn't accurate, although I understood what he was trying to say. It's actually less than 13% because all black people don't commit crime. So I would say stick to being accurate, stick to the facts, because when you don't, you actually push a narrative that will. Will be offensive to people, or people may push back, or they could then put a label on you. So I think we have a responsibility to stick to the facts. And when they're facts, you can't lean on facts. And it's just your beliefs. I don't have an issue with people leaning on their beliefs. Like Chink said, he's an atheist. Charlie was a believer. You stick to what you believe in. But again, it should never come down to violence and wanting to see somebody dead because of it. I don't have an issue with Jink being a atheist, even though I'm a bible believer. So I don't think anything should happen to him and he should be able to stand on what he believes just as anybody else. I just go back to my original saying, when you actually put a certain label on someone, just be accurate about it, you know, and as he said, he will call Trump authoritarian or fascist. I don't have an issue with that. We can debate that. That my whole issue was racist or Hitler or Nazi. I don't like that type of talk at all.
- [66:30]
A
Yeah, I just wonder if this will change the way either movements talk about politics or we're just going to get back to business as usual.
- [66:40]
B
Business as usual, Probably.
- [66:42]
C
Unfortunately, yeah, very likely. Businesses usual.
- [66:46]
B
Yeah.
- [66:46]
A
And with, with even more heated rhetoric or you think just the same?
- [66:52]
C
Well, what I'm worried about is the right wing is going to strike back so hard, and I don't mean through violence, I hope not through violence, but through a crackdown on speech like Representative Higgins is suggesting and Stephen Miller is suggesting. And then when you point out the hypocrisy of that because Charlie was, I mean, as big an advocate it publicly of free speeches as anyone, then they'll get even angrier. They'll leave, they'll do want to do more lockdowns on speech. And then we're gonna see where the Rogans of the world and the podcasters and online media lands. And my guess is they'll land in this case on, on our side and say, no, don't shut down speech. But it, but in terms of, in terms of, of, you know, hating each other, the right will do things that will make the left dig in even more, and then the left will do things that'll make the right dig in more. So until we get a transformational figure that lifts us out of this morass, I'm worried that it's only going to continue to devolve.
- [67:58]
A
And you guys don't see yourself as people who could have a role in that.
- [68:01]
C
No, I, I do, I do. I, I just don't see myself as that powerful. Powerful.
- [68:06]
D
Right.
- [68:06]
C
So like, I, I, I, I mean, as you can see here, as you see in all my comments on social media and as you've seen over the last two years on the Young Turks, we're the one show that's trying to bring people back together.
- [68:19]
D
Right.
- [68:19]
C
And we're telling our side constantly, don't hate the right, don't shut down the right, don't make assumptions about all Trump voters, don't attack the voters. You know, fight against ideology, fight against political leaders, but, but don't take it out on one another. And, and it's a tough task and, and, and a lot of people have appreciated it, and I hope we're showing good leadership about it. But can one show or a couple of voices make enough of a difference? Not yet. I mean, so far we're drowned out, to be honest.
- [68:55]
A
Yeah. And it seems like the administration is moving in a more aggressive path forward. We don't know what they're going to do, but they certainly see Kirk's death as, you know, a reason to. To move forward with some new policies. So we'll see what they come up with.
- [69:14]
B
Yeah. As for myself, I. I'm like Jing. I don't think that I am large enough. I don't think I am important enough. But I will say, I will be more mindful of how I say something, but I'm not going to change what I feel. I will continue to feel like homosexuality is unnatural and I'm one of these people. I don't care how you say you're born, then I will go to, you must be born again. I'm going to continue to speak against what I feel is wrong, but I never say, hey, somebody is gay, they need to die. They need to not have a right to a peaceful life. I would never, ever say that about anybody, regardless of what they're doing. That's not criminal. I will continue to be that person. But I'm gonna cry loud and spare. Not as long as I have breath.
- [70:13]
A
But the same rights as others, I would presume, right?
- [70:17]
B
Oh, I think everybody has that right. If you feel like it's okay to be gay, then cry loud. Say. Say that you feel like it's okay to be gay, but don't consider me saying it's not hate speech. And I think that's the problem that I have. People find something that's offensive and they just say, oh, it's hate. It's. It isn't hate if that's truly what you believe in your heart. Based on. Again, Charlie was a Bible believer, and it's not hate speech. To me, if Jinx says, I think it's natural because that's what he believes. Thieves. So I don't label everything hate speech. And I don't think just because it's offensive, it's hateful.
- [71:02]
C
Okay, last thing. See, like, I massively disagree with what Shamika just said.
- [71:08]
D
Right.
- [71:08]
C
About. Well, then just be born again.
- [71:10]
D
Right.
- [71:11]
C
It's just. I don't think that's how it works. Okay, but what, do I hate Shamika because of it? No, I totally understand where it comes from. From. She was taught something about the Bible and she believes it. And she's not doing it to hate you. She's doing it because she truly believes it right now. At the same time, I don't. And I think, you know, and I hope, and I'm with you, Tara, that it better not touch any of our rights. Right. Equality is equality. But it. But I. So but instead of saying, labeling that hate speech or getting offended, etc, just do you know, I would just counter with. Read the next verse in Leviticus. It says eating shellfish is an abomination, just as lying a man lying with a man is an abomination. So if you've eaten lobster, shrimp, or any of that stuff, you're.
- [71:57]
A
I think I broke that one. Yeah, yeah.
- [72:00]
C
You're in the same boat.
- [72:01]
D
Right.
- [72:01]
C
And so. Okay, but we can go back and forth on that. But you see how instead of saying, oh, my God, shut down Shemeka and I can't stand her, I just, you know, you counter with another Bible version. You have. Have an ideological debate until people come to a conclusion on it.
- [72:16]
A
It's a. It's a tough thing because, you know, as someone, too, that was raised to read the Bible fundamentally and no longer sees it that way, you could debate all day based on what's in the Bible, a number of books chosen by men, and some left out and some included in the various Bibles. And I think, like, Charlie used that a lot in his debate. And you'd have to just believe in Christianity to agree with his worldview, and that would be.
- [72:45]
B
Well, not for everything, because let's take Christianity out of it. A man can't become a woman. A woman can't become a man. So then if we get into the whole transgender thing, you can completely remove Christianity out of it. And biologically, that would still be a fact.
- [73:03]
A
I mean, some people are born transgender.
- [73:07]
B
Transgender would be to change the gender that you are.
- [73:12]
A
Her. I guess you would call them hermaphrodite.
- [73:14]
B
They have both, and that's very rare. But a man putting on a dress saying, I'm a woman, you. You just can't change that. A man with XX is xx. XY is xy. Yeah. So.
- [73:28]
D
Okay.
- [73:29]
B
Yeah.
- [73:29]
C
So look, we're going to get too deep into that. Into the weeds of that particular debate. Great. And I would just say, like, my life. One sentence on it is, you don't know what's in other people's heads. So.
- [73:42]
A
Right.
- [73:43]
C
You know, you.
- [73:43]
A
We.
- [73:44]
C
You just don't. And so.
- [73:46]
A
Or their lives or their upbringings or what they were exposed to. Like, if you were born on the other side of the world, like, you were like, jank and you were. You're Turkish, you're Muslim. Are you supposed to be blamed for the fact that you weren't raised Christian. That's your culture. That's your family. You know, this is. This is who you. This is what you were raised into. I was raised into Catholicism. You may have been raised into a different form of Christianity. Does it make any one of us different? It makes us all different, but doesn't make either any one of us and our perspectives any better or worse, in my opinion.
- [74:16]
C
Okay, super last thing. So, look, I was on a plane with a guy about a decade ago from Indiana. Good old boy, very conservative. We got along great. Talked about barbecue and football and all that. And at the end, you know, we asked about each other's background, and I said, well, I used to be Muslim, but now I'm atheist. And he said, well, I guess that's better. And so. Okay, now what? I could choose to get super offended by that, etc. But. But, guys.
- [74:51]
B
I just want to say bye. I have to go. I apologize.
- [74:54]
A
Okay, thank you so much for your time. Ye.
- [74:58]
C
Thank you, Shamika. Wonderful to meet you. Just super last thing. Like I said, look, I've never been in a situation where if you say to the other guy, that's it. You said something about Muslims I don't like. I hate you. And. And then he becomes more pro. Not Muslim, but the idea of Muslims being just like him and human like him and should have the same rights as him and should be treated the same way. Now, if you tell him you hate him and that it's an aggression or a microaggression or offensive and he should be shut down, he's gonna dig in and he's gonna hate Muslims more, Right?
- [75:33]
A
Oh, yeah. That'll be his one story about having an experience with a Muslim man.
- [75:37]
C
Exactly.
- [75:38]
A
That he carries with him for the rest of his life.
- [75:40]
C
Exactly. Or you could have a conversation like I did with him, and at the end, he thinks, well, maybe I was wrong about Muslims. Maybe they, you know, I mean, I had so much in common with that guy other than our background. And you plant that thought in his head by just being a decent person and not shutting down the conversation?
- [76:01]
A
Well, that takes a lot of maturity and humility. So, Cenk, thank you for coming on the show and being so honest and open. And I know you're a very busy guy with your own network, huge network, the Young Turks, which you should all check out sometimes. I appear on there when I'm invited, but it's really amazing to see what you've built on YouTube, and I think you're way ahead of the curve. And now it seems like everyone is trying to create their own young Turks network on YouTube. But appreciate you being on here and being so open. I think you really caught my eye because you were one of the first people to react to Charlie's death with so much humanity and your tweet was sent around virally and, and I think that was a really important moment in this, in this horrific, horrific, horrific thing that happened, this horrific assassination.
- [76:56]
C
Thanks, Sarah. I appreciate you saying that about the network. And yes, we've all got to do better so we don't have another tragedy like this.
- [77:04]
A
That was another episode of the Tara Palmeri Show. Thank you so much for tuning in. If you like this show, please rate, subscribe, leave a review, share it with all of your your friends. If you'd like more of my exclusive reporting, go to tarapaumeri.com that's T A R A P A L M E-R-I.com and sign up for my newsletter, the Red Letter, where you can get my exclusive reporting straight to your inbox. And it's also an opportunity to support my independent journalism by becoming a paid member. It's worth it. I'd like to also thank my producer, Eric Avenatte, Adam Stewart on the thumbnails, Abby Baker, who handles my socials and research, and everyone else who's a part of the Tara Palmieri team. I appreciate you listening and I will be back again soon.