#gay michael knowles

[queerdailywire-rpfwriter]

I would be devastated to lose any of my accounts and stories! Especially Supernatural, Daily Wire and Star Trek themed ones!

With the impending implementation of Project 2025, I suspect that AO3 will come under fire as well. And given that it’s a US based organisation, and the US has wedged itself somehow into every possible thing, I would also suspect that this will have global impacts. I cannot be certain of it - I’m certainly not an expert on political things and Trump remains, frankly, unpredictable - but I have personally found it’s more helpful to prepare beforehand than to scramble to keep myself afloat in the midst of a crisis. Knowing how important our favourite stories are to so many of us, here’s what I suggest:

Readers, I recommend you find your favourite stories again. Go all the way back in your bookmarks. Tell the authors you appreciate them, and you love their work. I think we could all use some nice words right now. If you want to keep the story, I recommend downloading it: here’s a guide on how to do so from the AO3 FAQ. I personally have wanted to take up bookbinding for a hot second; I might print off my favourite fics for myself and figure out how to bind them. The OTW also recommends downloading your favourites - see link below.

Authors, I recommend you keep your manuscripts. Download them onto an external flash drive and save them for a rainy day four or so years from now. Even the ones you don’t like are worth keeping - I guarantee you somebody else likes them even if you don’t. (I’m speaking to myself here, too.) Project 2025 has blatantly laid out a ban of pornography, and they will take that to mean whatever they want it to; I suggest you don’t even keep your fics on a Google drive if possible it’s definitely easier to keep them all online, trust me, I know, but so does the government. Corporations do not care about you: they will sell you out to whoever is willing to pay. Remember also to turn off AI scraping wherever possible, or better yet use sites that don’t engage in that behaviour.

For further reading from people more qualified than I, here’s the OTW’s statement on what their plans are so far.

I hope I’m wrong. I honestly would love nothing more. But more importantly, we will get through this. Humanity has told stories and put blorbos in situations for literal millennia. We’ll see the other side of this.

[queerdailywire-rpfwriter]

As the credits rolled on Strange Way of Life, Matt leaned back into the couch, stretching out with a forced air of indifference, but his mind was anything but calm. Michael had made some passing comment about Pedro Pascal's performance—how the actor had such a gentle, understated quality, a softness that made his characters linger in your mind long after the credits rolled.

Matt hadn't responded to that, but the words stuck with him. And as the film's imagery lingered in his thoughts, Pedro's presence began to take shape in his mind—short, his frame slight but not fragile, the kind of person you'd instinctively want to shield from the world. Matt could almost feel the weight of his dark, expressive eyes—eyes that seemed to carry every hurt, every hope, all at once. Pedro's vulnerability wasn't a weakness; it was an openness, an honesty that Matt found disarming.

He could picture it now, without even meaning to. Pedro's voice, low and a little hoarse, trembling with some unsaid plea as he looked up at Matt, his expression soft and trusting. The thought made something warm flare low in his chest, a protective urge so strong it caught him off guard. He imagined what it might feel like to be that anchor, that shield Pedro seemed to need—not out of pity, but because it felt... right. Matt shifted in his seat, uneasy at the strength of the image in his head. His gaze flicked to the now-empty screen, but all he could see was the curve of Pedro's lips, the vulnerability in his half-smile, the way his shoulders seemed to carry just a bit too much weight for one man to bear. And then, in his mind, he saw himself—standing there, solid and steady, grounding Pedro with a touch or a word. It wasn't lust, not entirely. It was something deeper, something that made him feel both tender and raw. He liked the idea of being that for someone—being needed in a way that felt so genuine it cracked through his defenses. With Pedro, it wouldn't be about proving himself or keeping up appearances; it would be about comfort, about safety. About warmth.

He let the fantasy unfold, just for a moment longer, the images vivid and unapologetic. There was no shame in it—no nagging voice telling him to push it away. For once, he let himself lean into the softness of the thought, the strange comfort of imagining something he'd never admit to wanting.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Eric Kleefeld and Courtney Hagle at MMFA: 

Following a mass shooting at a Christian private school in Nashville, Tennessee, that killed three students and three staff members, right-wing media seized on the reported identity of the shooter to continue villainizing and dehumanizing the entire transgender community and labeling transgender people as a threat to society.

[...]

But in the right-wing echo chamber, transgender people are not only a major force behind mass mass shootings (there is no data supporting this), but they also represent a burgeoning domestic terrorist movement seeking to attack society from within. These false claims are a mirror image of right-wing media’s own long pattern of incitement against LGBTQ people, which has been followed by either near-silence or outright justification of anti-LGBTQ violence after it occurs.

In one example, a hoax claim from a white nationalist social media account, alleging that trans people were planning to kill Christians, made its way into Fox News’ prime-time programming, with star host Tucker Carlson presenting this obvious lie as if it had been a real threat.

In the wake of the Covenant School shooting, the right-wing media turned on the firehose of anti-trans hatred by vilifying an entire group of people due to the shooter being trans. 

[socialistexan]

There is no "trans ideology" in the same way there wasn't a "gay agenda" or "international Jewish conspiracy."

It's bullshit made up for fascists to obscure their genocidal hatred of a minority group by simply framing it as a debate in the Marketplace of Ideas.

You can't convince moderates or nonbelievers by saying you want to eradicate a minority.

You can, however, get them on your side if you say there is a sinister ideology out to destroy everything you hold dear (especially your kids), tell them that ideology needs to be eradicated (why wouldn't you want to destroy the bad thing?), and then when you get enough people on board make it so that said ideology is intrinsically linked to whichever minority group you want to destroy. We've seen it happen multiple times in human history.

It's the plausible deniability game. We see Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles doing this right now, when someone even slightly less fashy than them asks them why they say they want to "eradicate transgender people," they can just simply "oh no no good sir, that is a willful misrepresention by Big Trans, I just want to eradicate transgenderism, okay, so get it right! Why are they persecuting me?" Blah blah blah bullshit.

It says "the, Bart, the!"

Remember, Hitler didn't claim to "hate Jews" he claimed he was just against "international jewery."

[freddie-77-ao3]

Riordanverse in Shades of Rainbow

queer sexualities and genders of various campers, gods, and other characters in the CHB universe.

Percy Jackson- trans guy, he/him. bisexual/biromantic

Annabeth Chase- cis girl, she/her. bisexual/biromantic.

Thalia Grace- non-binary, they/she. lesbian.

Grover Underwood- non-binary, they/he. panromantic/asexual.

Luke Castellan- cis guy, he/him. bisexual/biromantic.

Jason Grace- cis guy, he/him. gay. comp-het hit hard.

Miranda Gardiner- cis girl, she/her. straight.

Katie Gardner- cis girl, she/her. pansexual/panromantic.

Sherman Yang- cis guy, he/him, straight.

Ellis Wakefield- trans guy, he/him/ gay.

Clarisse La Rue- trans girl, she/her. poly and pan.

Malcolm Pace- trans guy, he/him. asexual, queer-- he likes girls and connor. Maybe boys? undecided, he's choosing not to think about it.

Lee Fletcher- trans guy, he/him. gay.

Michael Yew- trans guy, he/him. gay.

Will Solace- trans guy, he/him. bisexual/biromantic.

Austin Lake- cis guy, he/him, undecided.

Kayla Knowles- cis girl, she/her. lesbian.

Reyna Ramirez Arellano- cis girl, she/her. asexual, homoromantic.

Charles Beckendorf- cis guy, he/him, poly, bi.

Jake Mason- cis guy, he/him, bi.

Leo Valdez- cis guy, he/him, pan.

Nyssa Barerra- cis girl, she/her. lesbian.

Silena Beauregard- cis girl, she/her. poly, bi.

Drew Tanaka- trans girl, she/her. asexual, aromantic.

Piper McLean- cis girl, she/her. lesbian with a lot of comp-het.

Connor Stoll- non-binary, they/them. doesn't know, doesn't care. if you ask them, they'll start thinking, and then get distracted by something completely different. they're asexual though.

Travis Stoll- cis guy, he/him, bi.

Chris Rodriguez- cis guy, he/him, poly, bi (leaning toward guys)

Cecil Markowitz- trans guy, he/they. gay.

Nico di Angelo- cis guy, he/him, gay.

Lou Ellen Blackstone- trans girl, she/her. aromantic lesbian.

Hazel Levesque- cis girl, she/her. bicurious.

Clovis- trans guy, he/him. queer but doesn't care any more about it.

Frank Zhang- cis guy, he/him, straight.

Mitchell- trans guy, he/him. gay.

[batsarebetterthanpeople]

Fucking exactlyyyy this. It's the idea that you can't be homophobic unless you're literally the westboro baptist church

Just because sodomy isn't the problem doesn't make the devaluing of gay love any less homophobia. Just because Izzy's homophobia doesn't manifest as gay people icky doesn't make it less harmful to the gay people around him. His homophobia is in fact so much more interesting as a narrative tool because it's not like that. And part of the reason it's not like that is because he is in fact gay. Izzy repeatedly devalues gay relationships, he repeatedly shouts slurs at gay men, he punishes people for having gay sex and is harsher on the more feminine man in the scenario, he uses gay love as a corrupting influence rehetoric. But because he thinks it's fine if Jack and Ed give each other handies so long as their balls dont touch and he's not holding up a homo sex is sin sign y'all can't identify it. Incredible. Y'all make me afraid for your irl safety with your inability to identify homophobia that isn't properly labeled.

People will act like we're out of pocket for dismissing Con "the clothes swap flew over my head" O'Neill's reading of Izzy as not being Homophobic when they literally dismiss actual show runner David Jenkins who has said "people like to analyze what's going on with Izzy, Is he straight is he gay and he hates himself is he in the closet" leaving no room for gay and proud, liking multiple meta tweets about how Izzy is homophobic, and tweeting about how this show is about how what we're taught about being men is wrong.

[actualadvocacybruh]

You're not a feminist if all you post on your blog is anti-radfem content - if you're actually a feminist, show it: post whatever activism you truly believe in. Don't just tear down women who have slightly different beliefs than you. Stop bootlicking men, they aren't gonna fuck you for posting anti-feminist bullshit lmao

“If you don’t agree with fascists you aren’t a real feminists”

Bootlicking the patriarchy and demanding the genocide of minorities isn’t feminisms honey it’s fascism

You are not a feminist you are a misandrist that pretends to be an activist you will defend the tyrants as long as they say they hate trans people because you believe they are men

Just look at the bedfellows you share … Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles and every terf in the UK supports the tories and their anti gay anti abortion bs

Also I’m a cis man not a woman nor a troon (as you like to say) I’m an anarchist and anti fascist that has fought Nazis face to face for over a decade now(in the very literal sense btw) and I will oppose fascism no matter the genitalia it possesses

[the-oddest-inkling]

Just saw a short snipped on facebook by Michael Knowles talking how mental illness is purely spiritual?

It's the same route as "You just need to pray harder" or "Pray the gay aways".

Can we, as Catholics, please not go down this route? Please?

[firecrackerhh]

I found conservative Hazbin Hotel fans defending the show from the daily wire. Charlie Morningstar might be on to something. Just look it up on YouTube go straight to the Michael Knowles video and look at comment section.

I’m glad the people here aren’t that retarded but by god how on earth can you be a Michael Knowles fan and like Hazbin at the same time…wouldn’t the extremely gay vibes melt your brain or something?

Same with Tim Pool’s video.

But eh, I can’t necessarily complain either, I guess I just find it really weird when conservatives are actually fucking reasonable and not lunatics. I’m just too online lmao.

[talkingpointsusa]

Drowning in the Pool; Debunking the December 6th, 2023 Edition of the Tim Pool Daily Show.

From what I know about Tim Pool, he is a generally great source for completely ridiculous and inane takes. Despite seeing people talking about how dumb most of the crap he says is on YouTube, this is my first time listening to the entirety of one of his shows....yay?

I would say that Tim is a step above the Daily Wire on the path to alt-rightness. While he is still alt-lite, as most of the guys we cover on here are are, Tim does things that the Daily Wire wouldn't dare do if only to avoid complete and total embarrassment. He has interviewed Alex Jones, which the Knowledge Fight podcast did an excellent episode on, and regularly spews alt-right talking points...that is when he isn't blatantly contradicting himself.

We are talking about the Daily Show Podcast here as "TimCast IRL" is mostly just him interviewing people and I want to see how Pool stands on his own without anyone else.

Turns out, not so good. While I want to save my full rant for the conclusion, Tim was such a complete and utter dipstick not just from an opinions standpoint but from a journalistic one that he makes the Daily Wire look like the New York Freaking Times. So let's get into it shall we?

01:19: "Last night, Donald Trump spoke with Sean Hannity and there was this tremendous exchange which has the Democrats losing their minds. When asked if he would abuse his power to go after his enemies, Trump said 'Only on day one. After that I'm not a dictator.'"

Ah yes, the "Dictator for a day" remark. I didn't hear Michael Knowles talk about it on his Wednesday show but I'd imagine that Ben Shapiro probably did since he's the guy who usually spends his entire show talking about pure politics instead of culture war drivel like porn turning your kids gay.

Trump has been hinting at abusing his power by getting revenge on his perceived "enemies" for a while now. He recently referred to his political enemies as "vermin", a pretty clear attempt at dehumanizing them in the eyes of his followers. Tim seems to think all this is pretty cool, I'd imagine if Biden said that he'd devote fourteen episodes and three interviews on TimCast to talking about the "evil Democrats".

01:52: "But Hannity was asking Trump 'Will you go after your enemies to get revenge?' and Donald Trump kinda dodged the question but I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that he dodged in just that Trump does what Trump does, I don't view it the same way."

This is the joy of listening to Tim Pool, half the time you cannot understand what the hell he is talking about and to be fair I don't think he does either. So Trump dodged the question but wait, he didn't actually dodge the question because Trump is Trump. What the hell is going on here?!

02:12: "Now, it's important, because a few months ago Rachel Maddow made the claim that Trump literally wants to kill her."

Hey guys, ignore this flagrantly dictator-y claim from Trump, look at this thing Rachel Maddow said!

Rachel Maddow did say that Trump wants to put MSNBC on trial for treason and "execute us". However if you watch the clip, it's clear that she isn't exactly serious about this claim. She says it in a pretty sarcastic and offhand tone as opposed to the cowering and insane woman that Tim is trying to portray.

Also, it wouldn't be shocking if Trump tried to engage in some form of retribution against NBC, he's threatened it before.

04:30: "This is a fundamental problem in the culture war. The right will interpret and translate for Democrats, stop doing that, use their words. It really is annoying, Joe Biden will come out and go (Tim then says gibberish) and people will be like 'We know what he's saying, he was trying to imply this' and it's like, just use his words."

So, according to Tim, every single time a politician makes a verbal gaff we should just take what they say on face value instead of trying to comprehend what they are saying? How does that make any sense?!

And what's more, Tim literally just brushed off Trump's comments about being a dictator for a day as just "Oh that Trump, getting all excited!". What happened to just taking words at face value? Oh wait, I forgot, the rules don't apply to Tim's team. Silly me!

04:55: "But what we're seeing now is that Taylor Swift doesn't like Donald Trump, or at least that's the assumption. So when she said quote 'if she doesn't win at least I tried' they are like 'Aha she hates Trump' and I'm like that statement implies she's trying to help him win, at least."

A): Why are we talking about Taylor Swift?! This has zero to do with the topic at hand. Focus Tim, focus. You're supposedly a journalist so you should know not to mix up two stories.

B): She wasn't even talking about Donald Trump in that clip! It came from a documentary made in 2020 called Miss Americana and the "he" was the democrat running against Senator Marsha Blackburn, meaning she wanted a Democrat to win in the context of this clip and more importantly wasn't even talking about Trump.

So to recap, god-tier journalist Tim Pool just grabbed a clip off the internet without fact-checking it first and just rolled with it on his show.

06:31: "I gotta be honest, if Sean Hannity said 'Would you abuse power?' Trump can be like 'I'm not going to abuse power because I don't need to. I'm going to instruct my attorney general to immediately seek out criminal charges for the people who have committed crimes'. That's not an abuse of power, that is the appropriate use of power, and that is upholding the law. That's what I'd love to hear."

WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE?! I'm not even pissed, I find this hilarious in a depressing way. Not just because Tim is parroting long debunked election denial conspiracy theories and saying that Trump should throw people he thinks helped steal the election in jail, which is terrifying, but because this is awful from a pure journalistic standpoint.

We went from Tim introducing the topic, to Tim talking about the "culture war", to Tim talking about Taylor Swift, and now Tim is basically ranting about his stupid Donald Trump fanfiction. There is absolutely zero focus. At least with the Daily Wire the hosts can focus on one piece of hateful bile at a time. Oh yeah, and at least the Daily Wire pretends to do competent reporting and use rock solid sources. Tim's sources on the other hand are "I saw this video of Taylor Swift on Twitter!"

08:04: "In what world has anyone ever entertained the possibility that Donald Trump wants to put Rachel Maddow on trial for treason, which implies she's aiding and abetting a foreign adversary at a time of war."

First of all, I obviously think that putting journalists on trial for treason is disgusting and, like I said before, Maddow was being facetious.

But...does Tim not know what treason is? Treason isn't just "aiding and abetting a foreign adversary at a time of war", otherwise American's could betray their country during times of peace and get away with it because it isn't a time of war.

The official definition of treason is; “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

So for instance, leaking documents could be viewed as betraying the country. So could trying to overthrow the government, and Tim would know a lot about that since he likes to run cover for insurrectionists.

So either Tim doesn't know what he's talking about or he's misinterpreted the definition of treason, either one is painful to think about when you remember that people take this guy seriously as a news source.

08:56: "Donald Trump getting elected and going after criminals, liars, manipulators, and the corrupt is exactly what we need."

Ignoring the crimes Donald Trump has personally committed, Trump better start going after his own supporters!

Roger Stone is a pretty good example of a corrupt Trump associate, making false statements to congress and threatening Randy Credico with the removal of his service dog. Or how about George Santos, who's lies were so insane that he ended up recently getting thrown out of Congress.

09:07: "Look man, we have a Constitution-"

And judging by your idea of how treason works, you have read none of it.

09:51: "You see, Rachel Maddow is scared, because she knows she's one of the demons."

In between reading the constitution, Tim might have stumbled across this thing called the "First Amendment" that protects the freedom of the press.

We've gone down this road before. OAN tried to sue Maddow for comments she made about them on her show but the court ruled it was just opinion. Thanks to free speech and the freedom of the press, Rachel Maddow is free to express her opinion in the same way Tim Pool is. He's also allowed to criticize her just like how I am allowed to criticize him.

But Trump throwing her in jail for practicing journalism, that's a bridge too far.

13:13: "There are government actors who are working with media outlets. How many pundits for these cable channels are former intelligence officials or worked in the intelligence sector? A lot of them!"

Yeah, citation needed there buddy. You can't just drop "All left wing pundits used to work for the CIA" and not elaborate any further. And no, Tim doesn't give an example with proof of any pundits previously working in the intelligence sector.

I actually think this tops the Michael Knowles blackface episode for sheer ridiculousness. At least Michael did basic-ass shit like citing your sources when you make a claim and managing to keep track of the topic he was talking about. This episode is unintentionally hilarious. It feels like a parody of Tim Pool instead of the real thing.

Hey guys, remember when this was about the Trump dictator comments? I barely do. I was too blindsided by Tim saying that every anti-Trump pundit secretly works for the CI fucking A!

15:02: "I do believe that Trump lost 2020."

What?! Then what was all that crap about how Rachel Maddow is secretly a CIA Agent who intentionally spread misinfo about Trump and how Trump should go after all the "criminals" who helped take the election away from him? Tim is the most election truther-ish believer that Trump lost in human history.

But fine, I agree, Trump did lose 2020. I will take whatever win I can get here.

Tim then talks about how mail in voting messed up the election, so I guess he does believe the election was stolen. Whatever.

19:33: "Young people even saying they're more likely to vote for Trump now, at least in some polls. We're getting some new polls showing that it's actually going towards Biden, but these are different pollsters so we shall see."

Alright, so young people are inclined to vote for Trump, but actually they aren't. Even as pure right-wing propaganda this sucks. Tim contradicted himself and thus undermined his entire argument that the youth are swinging towards Trump in the span of two sentences.

21:13: "I think one thing we should do is remove party affiliation from ballots."

Wait what?!

I literally had to rewind that to make sure I was hearing that correctly and then promptly burst out laughing when I realized my hearing was correct.

But there's more, Tim tries to back this galaxy brained take up.

21:14: "Explain to me why we put party affiliation on ballots in the first place. Seriously, I mean it, comment, let me know. Because I think if you don't know who you're voting for, you shouldn't vote for them."

Well, since Tim wants an explanation, I'll give it to him.

Parties generally hold a certain set of values that voters identify with. For example; Democrats might push for more gun control whereas Republican's might push for less gun control. By putting party affiliation on ballots, it simplifies the voting process and allows people to vote for a candidate that they know will represent their ideals.

While I agree that people should look into their elected officials instead of just blindly checking the box beside their name, their party affiliation also helps give voters a general idea of what they stand for.

Also, if you took party affiliation off of the ballots, chances are people would just look up which party the candidate represents and vote partisanly anyway.

22:02: "If that was the case, people would actually be voting for who they thought should win and other people would vote randomly. Some might argue that whoevers on top would win because people would just vote for the first person. OK, the ballots can randomly align the names. I think this would result in Republicans winning."

So....people wouldn't be voting for who they think should win, they would vote randomly. But don't worry, that's ok because they can just scatter the names on the ballots and that will somehow lead to Republican's winning forever.

...

WHAT ARE WE-

22:27: "Because Democrat voters don't know anything and it's the ballot harvesting where they're like 'fill this out and vote for this person.' Now they could certainly do that still but a lot of this stuff is vote Democrat, vote Democrat, imagine if they had to refine this message and say 'Vote John Doe, Jane Doe, Jack Doe' in every district.

So essentially Tim's point is that Democrats will vote randomly because they don't know anything but voting Democrat. However I can think of a bunch of people who would be inclined to vote Democrat for really good reasons.

LGBTQ+ people would be inclined to vote Democrat because the Democrats have a more progressive stance on LGBTQ rights. Women who are concerned about their reproductive rights and abortion would be inclined to vote for the Democrats because they are firmly pro-choice. People who are concerned about gun safety would be inclined to vote Democrat because the Democrats want to reduce gun violence.

Also, does Tim want party affiliation to be removed during elections period and then when the person is elected they go "Surprise! Here's my affiliation"? Because it sure sounds like he does.

Even if party affiliation is taken off the ballots, it stands to reason that politicians would still campaign as Democrats instead of focusing it on "voting for Jack Doe" or whatever. And again, that info would still be up on the internet for anyone to find.

This makes absolutely no sense.

23:25: "But, for the time being lets stay focused on whether or not Trump is going to execute Rachel Maddow."

Tim is so insanely lost in the weeds here. The Maddow stuff was a sub-topic of Trump's dictator for a day comments which is supposedly what this segment is about and is also what the episode is titled after.

Make like a Ford and focus!

The segment ends about 30 seconds later, but the Tim Pool Daily Show podcast is an hour and a half of Tim's YouTube videos stitched together into one Frankenstein's monster of a show.

That first segment as we established was pretty damn bad. Tim was all over the place, contradicted himself a couple times, said batshit crazy things like that all left-wing political pundits used to work at the CIA, grabbed random misinformation from Twitter and reported it as news, and got some hilariously stupid takes about the election.

But hey, we've still got an hour left. Maybe Tim Pool was just having a bad day when he made that video, maybe Tim will swoop in and blow me away with his ingenious political takes in the next segment. After all, he is viewed as a valid source of news for the 1.35M people who subscribe to him, surely there must be some merit to what he says...right?

25:08: "When it comes to the issues that we're seeing at Harvard, UPen, and MIT where Elise Stefanik asked these representatives at these universities if calling for the genocide of Jews warranted bullying and harassment."

So, this story is making shockwaves through the right-wing grifter-sphere and all of them are misrepresenting the question, most likely just how Stefanik intended. The question was as follows;

"Dr. Kornbluth, at MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MIT’s code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment? Yes or no?"

The answer was as follows;

"If targeted at individuals not making public statements."

This is a loaded question. The universities bullying and harassment policies and really the general definition of harassment are that the act must be targeted at a specific person. This isn't about what their opinions are, this is about what the policy says!

Also, while I don't doubt that there have been instances of antisemitism on campus, portraying every single protestor as calling for the genocide of Jews is completely loaded. If Stefanik can give an example of an entire protest group calling for the genocide of Jews, I would love to see it! They are also ignoring that if such a group did exist they would be violating a litany of other rules and policies, just not this specific one that Stefanik has cherrypicked to create outrage.

By the way, considering that Stefanik is a big fan of Donald Trump who has a long history of antisemitism, she has zero right to call anyone else antisemetic.

27:04: "However, the woke left made the argument that they should be allowed to censor anyone and this brings us to the story and what I view as a major strike into the heart of the hypocrisy of wokeness."

First of all, Tim isn't being censored, he just isn't. I have yet to see one of these guy realize the total irony of them going onto their large platforms with millions of viewers and whine about being "censored".

Secondly, does Tim even know what the word "woke" means anymore? It's kind of just became his catch-all term for the political left to the point where it has lost all of it's meaning outside of "Left bad, get angry".

At the end of the day, Tim has boiled the conflict in the Middle East down to another piece of his culture war bullshit, and that's pretty ghoulish behavior.

28:48: "These other universities, they will silence the moderate opinions of, say, conservatives, they will ban people from speaking, they will shut you down and then when it comes to people attacking quite literally someone for being Jewish they will say it's 'context dependent'."

Conservatives really aren't being censored at universities. How about the multiple speaking engagements that Ben Shapiro and Co at the Daily Wire do at universities where they perform speeches and then "destroy" college kids who aren't prepared to handle their rhetoric? Same thing with Turning Point USA.

Also, for the last time, the protestors aren't calling for the death of all Jews.

30:26: "They're fascistic, they believe there's no truth but power, they want to impose their view through authoritarian means."

When Trump says he literally wants to be a dictator it's "Trump being Trump", when students exercise their right to protest "Oh my God, look at how fascist they are." Tim is a complete and utter hypocrite.

Also, might I remind you that Tim pals around with Matt Walsh who is literally a self proclaimed theocratic fascist and an old favorite to debunk here at Talking Points USA.

30:50: "So I read an academic paper about the economics of Nazi Germany and guess what they used to enforce their economic plan; cancel culture. That's it."

The Nazi's blacklisting, killing, and shunning people for not supporting a literal genocide is extremely different from people getting criticism over saying slurs and general bad behavior. Also, again, why are we talking about cancel culture now? Weren't we supposed to be talking about what is going on at universities?

I can't figure out if this is some sort of strategy Tim uses to distract his viewers from how flimsy his points are or if he is just naturally that rambly.

30:56: "What would happen is if you are a steel mill and you wanted to produce steel for cars or something you would get people coming to you like 'Hey man, I heard you aren't helping the war effort' and then they would ostracize you, shun you, and cancel you. Nobody would wanna work with you, nobody would wanna buy your product, you'd be forced to bend the knee and produce and produce the product they wanted you to produce. Kind of like what we see with DEI movies."

So we have producing tanks and producing slightly more inclusive movies. I kind of think that the stakes with one are higher than the other.

I don't see how a film company interpreting a film differently for more modern audiences is such a big deal. The original Snow White cartoon was radically different from the original Grimm Fairytale because THAT audience probably wouldn't want to see cannibalism and a woman dancing in red hot slippers until she died a brutal death. How is changing it now any different?

Tim then plays the MIT bullying and harassment clip. I honestly came so close to forgetting that this was what Tim Pool was talking about. We already talked about this so there's not much need to repeat ourselves. Tim then waxes poetic for two minutes about the nature of free speech, nothing particularly important there, just Tim saying a whole lot of nothing. Then this happens;

41:24: "Most Conservatives and most Liberals would agree on certain things that cross the line into targeting someone with harassment and it's not just calling someone a name, it's typically-well I shouldn't say the left-"

If you think I am misinterpreting that quote, go to the time stamp I provided and hear it for yourself....oops. In case you aren't following along; Tim accidentally admitted that he knows the left knows what crosses the line into harassment then proceeded to backtrack and correct himself on air then proceed to just run with it as if it never happened.

And he doesn't go any further on "well I shouldn't say the left", he just goes on with his sentence! I suppose if you aren't listening to this show critically, which most of Tim Pools fanbase probably isn't because otherwise they would have turned it off during the ballot affiliation nonsense, it is easy to miss. But it is both hilarious and telling if you do catch it.

Considering that Tim's show is mostly YouTube, he could easily cut embarrassing shit like this out and save himself the face of looking like a complete doofus. And yet here we are.

43:08: "I think shining a light on this speech is the most important way to combat it."

If that's the case, I'd like to see the video of the hoards of university students calling for the death to all Jews.

46:46: "I had this conversation with someone recently and I said this, listen. People talk about white privilege, let's talk about white privilege."

I am so exasperated right now. So, Tim's point is essentially that white privilege doesn't exist (which might I add follows up three minutes of him basically saying that he isn't a racist in twelve different ways) and he goes about explaining why this is by telling this anecdote about him telling someone else an anecdote and *sigh*, let's just let Tim explain it.

46:53: "Let's say you go to a job interview and you wanna get a job at a bank and you show up wearing a dago tee and baggy jeans and sneakers and you walk in, you've got a sideways cap and you're like 'Yo whatsup dude. I think I could work your bank pretty good man' (Tim says this in what I think was his attempt at a stereotypical black accent) they're gonna be like 'I don't know if that's the right job for you', right. The people in the banks, they wear suits."

Ok, pause for a minute. What exactly do you think the likelihood is that anyone, minority or otherwise, would wear a dago tee and sneakers to a bank and proceed to say "I think I could work your bank pretty good man" to the manager?! I guarantee you that has never happened once, people are smart enough to know to dress up if you're going to try and apply to work at a bank.

I mean yeah, in this strawman universe Tim has constructed for his audience it would make sense for the bank manager to turn this hypothetical guy down. However what Tim is implying here is that all minorities stroll into job interviews poorly dressed and speak in stereotypical "hood" lingo and that's why the system tends to exclude minorities, if they just learned to act more polished (read; White) they'd be fine!

What Tim is ignoring is that even when minorities do try, the data shows that they still aren't getting ahead compared to whites. Here is a really interesting study about discrimination if you want to read further.

47:49: "It's not about race, it's not about language, it's about 'are you here to work with us? Are you gonna be a good worker? Are you gonna be able to help and cooperate and be part of a team?' Those things matter and culture matters. So when that guy walks in slouching (and) wearing street clothes, it doesn't matter what your race is."

Well, if you look at the numbers it clearly does. For example, the study I mentioned found that African Americans are twice as likely to be unemployed as whites.

Tim then switches to his next segment, it's about the border tensions between Venezuela and Guyana. Most of the beginning portion is just Tim reading about what the situation is so we can comfortably skip over that. Tim thinks this will lead to WW3 because if war breaks out and the US gets involved the USA will be involved in three wars. Given all the wars in the middle east America has gotten involved in, by Tim's logic we would have been in WW3 a long time ago.

Warning for this next part: Tim decides to (surprise, surprise) be a massive transphobic bully in this next segment. I you're not comfortable with that, I totally get you, I barely am either. Feel free to click off and I'll see you in the next one!

1:00:03: "Dylan Mulvaney recently spoke at Penn State and nobody showed up."

Absolutely nobody outside of these reactionary media outlets that want to mock Dylan because she is transgender is talking about this because who cares?

A speaker didn't draw a huge crowd, so what? She's still getting paid at the end of the day and it looks like the folks who did come had fun.

Also, it's exam season! I would imagine that part of the reason why there weren't very many people is because most students are studying for or writing finals.

1:00:29: "This is exemplified by Bud Light sales continuing to decline."

We're still talking about this stupid story huh? If you haven't heard of this story, it essentially boils down to Bud Light hiring Dylan Mulvaney to do a promotion and the entire right wing collectively throwing a bigoted tantrum over it because Dylan is trans and boycotting the brand.

Eagle eyed viewers might be thinking to themselves "Wait, didn't Tim decry this exact thing earlier in the episode?" Well, just to refresh everyone's memory, here is exactly what Tim said!

"What would happen is if you are a steel mill and you wanted to produce steel for cars or something you would get people coming to you like 'Hey man, I heard you aren't helping the war effort' and then they would ostracize you, shun you, and cancel you. Nobody would wanna work with you, nobody would wanna buy your product, you'd be forced to bend the knee and produce and produce the product they wanted you to produce"

What Tim claims to hate is exactly what he is doing here. Cancelling a company because they dared to have a transgender person in their ads. And yet apparently it's the woke left ™ who is doing all the cancelling. This story is a great example of how painfully hypocritical guys like Matt Walsh, Tim Pool, and Steven Crowder are. One minute they are all about the free market and how they hate cancel culture but the second a company decides to act more excepting towards a marginalized group that they don't like they become everything they claim to hate, a bunch of whiny snowflakes whining about a commercial that doesn't even effect their lives.

01:01:28: "But I think what we are looking at is a warning to the American people and to parents about what these machines will do."

Oh, heaven forbid we have a transgender person on the internet with a sizeable following. It can't be because of her content, it's got to be the algorithm! Seriously, do these guys just think about trans people 24/7?! I have trans friends who I guarantee you think about trans people less than these guys do.

01:01:50: "What we are looking at with Dylan Mulvaney is the story of an individual desperate for attention and the machine plugged Dylan Mulvaney in, that's it. Then you've got sideshow gawkers, carnival goers, who wanted to egg on an individual who was influenceable and suffering, and that's what they did."

I highly HIGHLY object to Tim's indirect comparison of transgender people to circus freaks. Also, this is obviously not true. I went on Instagram and looked at the comments on her most recent post and most were really positive and supportive.

01:02:24: "I don't believe Dylan Mulvaney is trans, I believe Dylan Mulvaney is getting surgeries that make Dylan Mulvaney fit a cast or a character."

First of all, downplaying somebodies sexuality by saying they are just "playing a character" is a nasty thing to do.

Second of all, what the hell is up with Tim using Dylan's full name all the time? Just say "she", come on, it's not that hard.

Tim then rants about how he has "more influence" than Dylan does and how his events sell out more, just basic immature "I'm bigger than you, nyanyanyanya." shit. Then he drops this gem.

01:07:16: "What if, there actually are no followers? What if the reality is that Dylan Mulvaney is mostly followed by bots and they're not real people?"

So a majority of 10 million people are bots?! She's clearly met a lot of her fans in person, a fair amount of them have posted about meeting her, hell three of my friends who I know in person follow her and one regularly comments. Plus she has a reasonable amount of merch which her fans have posted pictures of them wearing!

Do I sense a twinge of jealousy in Tim regarding followers? "Yeah, I have 9 million less followers than you but guess what?! Your followers are all BOTS while mine are real, ha!"

01:09:00: "We take a look at the average turnaround, or conversion, for a view on other shows compared to ours."

Careful throwing the c-word around Tim. Michael Knowles might accuse you of planting subliminal messages in TimCast to turn people gay.

01:11:21: "AOC makes shocking claim that all schoolgirls will be forced to undergo genital examinations if biological men are barred from woman's sports."

This quote is being taken out of context by Tim Pool and other reactionaries on the right. What actually happened was that she responded to Goss Graves who said "It's terrible, in some states any individual can challenge whether someone is a girl enough to play. In some states, it requires actual genital verification, it's shocking."

AOC responded by saying "Under the guise of not only trying to further marginalize trans women and girls, we are talking about opening up all women and girls to genital examinations when they are underage, potentially just because someone can point to someone and say, ‘I don’t think you’re a girl."

So right out of the gate, this isn't some unprompted thing that came completely out of left field like Tim is saying. AOC was responding to something Graves said.

It's not like what she is saying isn't without merit either. Ohio attempted to advance a trans sports ban with genital examinations, thankfully the genital examinations were later removed (although the bill itself is still transphobic and discriminatory so not too thankfully).

01:12:21: "I would like to introduce Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to something called a physical."

Again, she was responding to what Graves said about genital examinations and pointing out the slippery slope that trans sports bans can lead up to. Physicals weren't a part of the initial conversation, the conversation was about genital examinations.

Also, if it's a trans female who is suspected of being a "biological male", a physical could turn into a genital examination really quickly.

01:14:18: "So there are trans people, children, who are getting their birth certificates changed."

Yes, you can amend your gender to your preferred one on a birth certificate. I don't see how this is a bad thing, unless you're like Tim Pool and don't believe that trans people actually exist (and even if they do they are completely invalid and undeserving of the right to have their sexuality respected).

This is also only tenuously related to the topic at hand which is that out of context AOC quote. I am slowly coming to the realization that Tim's general lack of focus is probably a conscious decision. Blindside your audience by hopping from topic to topic in order to distract them from how completely without merit what you are saying is.

01:17:15: "AOC is claiming that trans people are criminals. That's right, that's what she's saying. She's saying that if we say that males should not be on female sports that the males will lie and cheat anyway."

Or, that more masculine females would be subject to genital investigations because the authorities would suspect them of being transgender. Castor Semenya is a prime example of this.

01:19:51: "Democrats are evil."

Can't get much more hatemonger-ey than calling an entire political affiliation evil just because of some quote on politician said that is being taken out of context. Isn't this guy supposed to be a centrist or something?

Conclusion:

Well, that was...an episode of a podcast. Ignoring allll the other dumb stuff that happened in this podcast, this was some of the most genuinely terrible journalism I have seen ever. From reporting on tweets with blatant misinfo in them to painful lack of focus to some of the dumbest takes I have covered for this blog so far this was one of the most painful yet fascinating things I have covered here.

I am both excited and dreading to cover more Tim Pool but other people and things need our attention first. We'll be dipping our toes into a new soon to be recurring grift-er-character on this blog next.

Until then, if you have any other suggestions for a right wing figure who you would like to see debunked/made fun of on the blog, I'd love to hear it.

Cheers and I'll see you in the next one.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ari Drennen at MMFA:

Senator and podcaster Ted Cruz (R-TX) is just one of the many political candidates flooding the airwaves with ads claiming that his opponent “opposed protecting women’s sports.” But does Cruz — or anyone else pushing trans inclusion in athletics as an electoral issue — actually care about women's sports? 

Daily Wire host Michael Knowles, who co-hosted the Verdict podcast with Cruz until October 2022, recently made clear that he does not, and never has. His is a surprisingly popular point of view in a right-wing ecosystem that has worked to elevate perceived threats from equal participation of trans women in women’s sports as a path to winning over voters at odds with the GOP’s view on abortion. As co-hosts of the Verdict podcast, Knowles and Cruz frequently used their airtime to discuss anti-LGBTQ ideas, policies, and conspiracy theories.  In just one episode, Cruz claimed that “the radical extreme left … want to sexualize little kids so they're in this gay bar,” while Knowles compared drag shows with taking children to a strip club. In another, Knowles pushed Cruz to use his power as an elected official to ban gender-affirming care. 

The inclusion of trans athletes — real or imagined — in women’s sports has been a fixation of the right-wing media ecosystem even before University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas became the first trans woman to win an NCAA title in 2022.  Coverage frequently suggests that cisgender women face safety risks as a result of pro-trans policies, and commentator Riley Gaines has apparently gone so far as to compensate an athlete for forfeiting a match against a transgender competitor, while pushing former President Donald Trump to make the issue a centerpiece of his 2024 campaign.  Right-wing media figures previously predicted that a backlash against trans athletes would fuel Republican victories in the 2022 midterms and beyond. Although voters have consistently rejected candidates who’ve chosen to embrace the issue, that hasn’t stopped pundits from arguing that 2024 will be different.

Many of the same figures fixated on the inclusion of trans women in women’s sports have not bothered to hide their contempt for the institutions and athletes they claim to defend: Knowles has mocked the WNBA and called for the U.S. women’s national soccer team to be disbanded. His co-worker Matt Walsh has complained about women even covering football games as reporters. Fox News host Jesse Watters has suggested that the only reason to watch women’s sports is if the athletes are getting hurt by men. Riley Gaines’ colleague Clay Travis derided Olympic swimmer Katie Ledecky as “pathetic” and “a coward” for not sharing his political views. And Gaines herself has labeled WNBA players inferior to male high school athletes.

Other right-wing media figures have acknowledged that the GOP’s panic over men in women’s sports is not based in facts or logic; in an interview promoting The Daily Wire’s critically panned basketball comedy Lady Ballers, founder Ben Shapiro admitted that “as it turns out, most ladies' leagues don't allow in actual men.”

Republican candidates keep wasting money on anti-trans ads claiming to “protect women’s sports”, but MAGA media influencers won’t stop taking cheapshots at women’s sports at every opportunity.

[swingleftnewsjunkie]

At CPAC over the weekend, right-wing columnist and podcaster Michael Knowles told the assembly, “Transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely.” The crowd erupted in applause. Like many crises today, this escalation of rhetoric by the right is both a five-alarm moment and entirely, terrifyingly predictable. 

News organizations and activists denounced the statement as genocidal in its language and intent, and there is no doubt that it was, even though Knowles now denies it. After all, you can’t have transgender people without transgenderism, and one need only substitute another “-ism” to see why: “Judaism must be eradicated from public life” also means exactly what it sounds like.

How should we interpret Knowles’s horrific pronouncements? And why is the right targeting trans people in particular and at this moment? 

It’s admittedly difficult to talk about “genocide” in America without being dismissed as having a Cassandra complex, so let’s turn to history as a useful and distressingly on-point guide in this case. Let’s also examine the recognized societal indicia that tip nations into violent and hellish “final solutions.” 

Upgrade to paid

Attacks on trans identity kicked off German extremism

Those warning of the dangers of genocidal language deployed openly against an entire community have some disturbing history on their side. When Hitler rose to power as German chancellor in 1933, he enacted policies to rid the country of Lebensunwertes Leben, or “lives unworthy of living.” His targets included Jews, Roma people, disabled people and communists—but also specifically homosexuals and transsexuals.

We hear echoes of “lives unworthy of living” in the rhetoric of the right today. Radical podcaster and columnist for the Daily Wire, Matt Walsh, who has amplified Knowles’s attacks, recently told his listeners that he would rather be dead than have a trans kid. Knowles himself has argued on his podcast (which until recently he co-hosted with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)) that words like “genocide” do not even apply in the first instance, because being trans “is not a legitimate category of being.”

While many are familiar with haunting images of the first book burnings in Germany, which took place in May of 1933, most aren’t fully aware of their origin story.From https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa4530

The books and texts that provided the fuel for that first bonfire came from the library of the Institute for Sexual Research, founded in 1919 by Magnus Hirschfeld, a gay, Jewish doctor. As Scientific American notes, the Institute was “full of life everywhere” and provided incredible and groundbreaking gender affirmation care to trans individuals. Its mission was to provide a center for “research, teaching, healing and refuge” that could “free the individual from physical ailments, psychological afflictions and social deprivation.”

In other words, the first book burning in Germany, which led to copycat bonfires around the country, was an attack on a trans care institution. There are echoes of this today: The far-right has specifically chosen to target trans care centers in America, including repeated bomb threats to Boston Children’s Hospital, for providing gender affirming medical care. 

Yes, a call to eradicate “transgenderism” is a call for genocide

When news organizations such as Rolling Stone and The Daily Beast ran headlines that Knowles had called for transgender people to be eradicated, Knowles called the headlines libelous and had his PR department at the Daily Wire threaten to sue for mischaracterizing his statement. Knowles insisted he wasn’t calling for the eradication of people, just an ideology. (Rolling Stone responded by changing its headline to an even better one: “CPAC Speaker Calls for Eradication of ‘Transgenderism’ — and Somehow Claims He’s Not Calling for Elimination of Transgender People.”)

Dangerous semantics aside, even if we were to look at Knowles’ statement as a call to eradicate an “ideology”—which of course logically would mean the eradication of the practice of transitioning and therefore the eradication of all trans people—we very quickly run into problematic history. As author Brandon Friedman notes, 

In fact, during the six years of Hitler’s dictatorship prior to the outbreak of war in 1939, as the Holocaust Encyclopedia cited by Friedman notes, Jews felt the effect of 400 decrees and regulations that restricted all aspects of their public and private lives. This is what it meant in real terms to “eradicate Judaism” from society. Similarly, in America the internment of Japanese Americans began with the freezing of bank accounts, a curfew past sunset and sharp restrictions on travel.

Today, that same dire historical pattern could not be clearer. So far this year alone, there have been over 300 anti-LGBTQ+ bills proposed, some of which are now signed into law, with a particularly cruel emphasis upon trans identity and trans kids. As trans rights activist Erin Reed observes, such legislation is surfacing in a majority of states in the country: 

In sum, the push to eradicate “transgenderism” and erase trans people is in fact already fully underway in much of the country.

We are on the doorstep of something truly terrible. But we can turn back.

Genocide Watch lists the 10 stages that that historically lead to genocide. Importantly, the group writes, “At each of the earlier stages there is an opportunity for members of the community or the International Community to halt the stages and stop genocide before it happens.”Image from https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocides/what-is-genocide/the-ten-stages-of-genocide/

As LGBTQ+ activist Alyssa McKenzie notes in a powerful thread, we have already gotten to eight of these steps with respect to the trans community:

This is why it is so vital, at this moment, for us to understand where we are in historical terms and what we must do to protect vulnerable minorities like the LGBTQ+ community. We must do so not only for their sakes, but because we know that this kind of hatred and targeting is a test: If the far-right can drive a wedge and cause a majority of the population to turn away from one vulnerable community, either through indifference or pure fatigue, then it also knows the country is susceptible to other forms of autocracy, madness and violence. 

Our first obligation as citizens of a free and, yes, liberal democracy is to guarantee the full participation of every member, and not ever allow demagogues and hate-mongers to silence any part of it, whether they call any of us communists, “woke,” or queers. We are not without power in the face of these attacks. We can lift up trans voices, call out trans hate, oppose anti-trans legislation, offer trans sanctuaries and donate to organizations fighting on the front lines.

The same right wing groups have already come not only for LGBTQ+ people but for women’s reproductive rights, for minority voting rights, and for press and academic freedoms. So this isn’t a drill. We know from history where this could lead if we fail to take a stand now.

The main difference between pre-war Germany and America today is that we have the benefit of their painful, devastating history. Our duty is to demonstrate that we have learned those vital lessons. When we hear that “trans rights are human rights,” we must not only concur loudly and with all our voices, but actively identify and teach the terrible mistakes from the past so that we never repeat them.

Subscribe to The Status Kuo

By Jay Kuo

The Status Kuo provides political and legal analysis in plain English, with no paywall! In crazy times, a little clarity goes a long way. Subscribe to get my email sent to your inbox. And if you’d like to be a voluntary paid supporter, I thank you!

[hornyfor70yroldrockstars]

I never understand why people are so against same sex couples. I never understood it.

I have some friends who are also women, and they are straight, or unlabelled. And I love the beautiful friendships that women have with each other. And while I have always admired that, I also thought about the beauty of a wlw relationship. I always thought about how beautiful it is to be in a same sex relationship. But sadly too I have only seen male friendships and female relationships that are platonic. And what I’m trying to say is male and female friendships are beautiful, but why is it bad for a man and a man to be together, and for a woman and a woman to be together? I just don’t get it because when I talk about the lgbtq+ community, people say such disgusting things about it. They call gay and trans people pedophiles, they say that people who are gay or lesbian shouldn’t act on it, because if they do than apparently they’ll suffer in hell for eternity. And people constantly ask me “when will you get a boyfriend?” It makes me mad. I’m still attracted to men, but I’m saying it’s so much better when someone says person and not man. Because I want to find someone who is like me and someone that I love. And I don’t care what their gender is. And sadly when I say that I get hate for it. And I’m talking about family or coworkers. A lot of them are accepting, but many of them are also very old fashioned. So they think that only a man and a woman should be together. I just hate it because I know that it’s ok to be a part of the lgbtq+ community, but when I hear people only talk about straight relationships, and support these evil people who are spreading so much homophobia and transphobia, it makes me hate myself. And I always feel left out because most friends and people just talk about being with a man. It’s always about a man, hooking up with a man, blah blah blah. It makes me feel lonely because I’m not interested in that stuff.

All I want to say is sadly there are a lot of fucked up evil people in the world. Especially now with all of those evil influencers such as Andrew tate, Michael Knowles who is causing a genocide towards trans people, Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh and many more close minded assholes that sadly have many fans. But thankfully there are many great people out there who are supportive and loving towards everyone and wants everyone to be able to love who they love and be who they truly are. I just hope things get better and that people stop being bigoted assholes and educate themselves about the lgbtq+ community and how amazing they are. Because trans people, gay, lesbian anyone apart of the community should be able to live in a safe place and be who they are. I hope these anti lgbtq+ laws go away because it’s fucking disgusting.

[deblala]

‘One Of The Wildest Stories I’ve Ever Heard’: Michael Knowles Interviews Christian Couple Who Previously Identified As Gay And Transgender

https://www.dailywire.com/news/one-of-the-wildest-stories-ive-ever-heard-michael-knowles-interviews-christian-couple-who-previously-identified-as-gay-and-transgender

[xxxsimplyhookedxxx]

Michael Knowles ANALYZES the Super Gay "The Acolyte" Scene