Speaker 1: Welcome to the Late Debase.
Speaker 2: Good evening and welcome to the program. I'm Caleb Bond
Speaker 2: with Liz Storer and Joe Hildebrand, who is tonight wearing
Speaker 2: a suit Hi.
Speaker 3: By popular demand, I have removed the tie. People have
Speaker 3: time not to get ahead of my chest. Don't be something.
Speaker 3: And they said that, you know how they say, don't
Speaker 3: dress for the job. You have dress for the job
Speaker 3: you want. Everyone said, I'm not going to get it.
Speaker 2: Well, you know last time I got the chest here
Speaker 2: out on the management told me to put it away.
Speaker 1: But it was too many.
Speaker 2: But I'll have you know that the female viewers were
Speaker 2: quite happy with it. Anyway. Some of what's coming on
Speaker 2: the show tonight sound the Clacks and the a b C.
Speaker 2: The lefty national broadcaster purer than the Driven Snow is
Speaker 2: full of sex pests, will tell you about that. A
Speaker 2: Captain Cook statue is for the chop this time down
Speaker 2: in Tasmania. We'll get to that in the papers. And
Speaker 2: a drag queen pro Palestinian protester what they think would
Speaker 2: happen to them in Gaza. The rank stupidity, I don't
Speaker 2: think will surprise you. But first we've had a warning
Speaker 2: today about the potential consequences of AI being wrought upon
Speaker 2: the world without any regulation. A group of people who
Speaker 2: have worked and currently work at open Ai, which created
Speaker 2: chat gpt, one of the best known AI bots in
Speaker 2: the world, has issued an open letter not only to
Speaker 2: the company but of course the rest of the world saying, look,
Speaker 2: there's a culture of secrecy at this company and that
Speaker 2: they are moving forward very fast with the hopes of
Speaker 2: trying to create a robot that not only is something
Speaker 2: that you can talk to and ask at questions and
Speaker 2: it delivers the answers, but a robot that would be
Speaker 2: able to do anything a human can do. Now, of
Speaker 2: course this could have real consequences for the world. What
Speaker 2: sort of jobs might we have if the robot bots
Speaker 2: can do all of them? They basically warned us that
Speaker 2: the world could look something like this. Imagine us going
Speaker 2: to war with the robots. Something tells me we might
Speaker 2: come off second best. Now, what Open Eye is trying
Speaker 2: to create is called AGI artificial general intelligence. Of course,
Speaker 2: at the moment we talk about AI just artificial intelligence.
Speaker 2: The difference, of course with artificial general intelligence is the
Speaker 2: general bit meaning stuff that a human can do. It
Speaker 2: goes beyond just the ability of a computer to interpret
Speaker 2: information and create answers and give you legal advice, the
Speaker 2: sort of things that people use chat GPT for creat
Speaker 2: images and all of this sort of stuff. But move
Speaker 2: on to the realm of a robot being able to
Speaker 2: fill your role, perhaps being able to cook, being able
Speaker 2: to do the cleaning, being able to drive a truck,
Speaker 2: drive a car, all of these sorts of things. And
Speaker 2: you might be sitting at home thinking that sounds great.
Speaker 2: I want one of these robots in my house to
Speaker 2: do the cooking and cleaning for me. But it's a
Speaker 2: very different proposition when they put that robot at what
Speaker 2: is currently your desk and tell it to do your job.
Speaker 2: This is a robot that had sorry, chat GPT installed
Speaker 2: into it, showing how this might work.
Speaker 3: Gret can I have something to.
Speaker 4: Should thing?
Speaker 1: Great?
Speaker 4: Can you explain why you did what you just stared
Speaker 4: while you pick up this trash.
Speaker 2: On it? So?
Speaker 5: I gave you the apple because it's the only edible
Speaker 5: item I could provide you with from the table.
Speaker 2: I mean, good grief. If that is not weird, I
Speaker 2: don't know what is. And soon enough they'll probably put
Speaker 2: one of those in this chair. Here, and you won't
Speaker 2: be watching Caleb Bond. You'll be watching whatever robot is
Speaker 2: pretending to do my job.
Speaker 3: But it's already happened.
Speaker 2: Well, actually, no, no, I can assure you.
Speaker 3: I don't know either of you are human.
Speaker 2: I know a robot would say this, but I can
Speaker 2: assure you I am a human. I hope that.
Speaker 4: You must protest too much. That is what a crafty
Speaker 4: robot would say, like what you two? You too, II,
Speaker 4: I'm the real We all know.
Speaker 3: When it comes to II who smelt it, Delta.
Speaker 2: They may well have already installed the chip in my brain.
Speaker 2: But watching that robot, it is scarily real. It's even
Speaker 2: got the intonations of a real person. It says ahmn a.
Speaker 2: It's doing absolutely everything to give you the impression that
Speaker 2: it is not a robot. It is the real thing.
Speaker 2: And what these workers and former workers from open ai
Speaker 2: have warned is that because open ai is supposedly, according
Speaker 2: to them, moving so fast to make this happen, it
Speaker 2: could get so out of control that what they create
Speaker 2: and what we end up creating overtakes us. It's all
Speaker 2: good and well to have AI and robots while we
Speaker 2: are in control of them, but we could well, create
Speaker 2: a version of AI or AGI, which is what they're
Speaker 2: moving towards, that is smarter than us, that can take
Speaker 2: over from us, and well, what the hell are we
Speaker 2: going to do after that? And what they allegedly is
Speaker 2: in this open letter is that workers at Open AI
Speaker 2: are actively told not to discuss anything that goes on.
Speaker 2: They're told to keep it all secret. They have non
Speaker 2: disparagement clauses in their contracts which effectively prevent them from
Speaker 2: ever speaking out about this kind of stuff. And I'm
Speaker 2: sure AI is not the only company that's doing this
Speaker 2: kind of thing. You know. It's great. Technological advances have
Speaker 2: done wonderful things for the world, devastating correct, But there
Speaker 2: is a point that can come, and we're getting closer
Speaker 2: to it, I think with the advent of AI where
Speaker 2: the technology is smarter than us and we don't know
Speaker 2: what happens after that.
Speaker 4: No we don't, but there's a lot of movies made
Speaker 4: about it, so we can basically see the future by
Speaker 4: watching those. But this is alarming when you've got insiders
Speaker 4: who have worked on the technology and they're the ones
Speaker 4: blowing the whistle saying, hey, we're scared that this is
Speaker 4: getting out ahead we're scared that in pursuing this, it's
Speaker 4: actually turned into something reckless.
Speaker 1: And when you think about the amount.
Speaker 4: Of jobs, and we've talked about this before, the amount
Speaker 4: of jobs that will end up losing to AI. I've
Speaker 4: seen a lot of people say, oh, well, I'm happy
Speaker 4: for AI to learn how to do the cooking and
Speaker 4: the cleaning so I can get on with other stuff
Speaker 4: that I rather enjoy doing.
Speaker 1: But even that is doing people out of jobs.
Speaker 4: We talk about cars that can drive themselves, Well, that's
Speaker 4: six hundred thousand truck drivers in Australia done out of
Speaker 4: a job right there. That's to say nothing of the
Speaker 4: Uber drivers, tens of thousands of Uber drivers taxi drivers
Speaker 4: in Australia. At what point do the people developing this
Speaker 4: technology simply go, hang on a minute, the repercussions of this.
Speaker 4: Even if we can have the perfect.
Speaker 1: Driverless car tomorrow, it's not worth it. We'll be doing
Speaker 1: millions of people out of a job. Let's pull the
Speaker 1: plug on this.
Speaker 4: The economy wouldn't cope with that. These people would what
Speaker 4: then just rely on the state for their bread and butter.
Speaker 4: The repercussions simply aren't being thought through and in so
Speaker 4: many sectors.
Speaker 1: Already we're racing ahead.
Speaker 4: Now, I'm not like put the kibosh on AI. It
Speaker 4: is already proved very useful for certain things, especially in
Speaker 4: the medical profession, but in many others.
Speaker 1: It's it's just like you're looking at.
Speaker 4: The long term effects and going, we don't want that
Speaker 4: for our society.
Speaker 1: In fact, how on earth would we cope.
Speaker 3: We don't have a choice. We don't have a choice.
Speaker 1: That's what Elon Must says.
Speaker 3: That's right, It's coming, whether we like it or not.
Speaker 3: We can try to regulate it as best we can.
Speaker 3: Even if we try to do that, it only takes
Speaker 3: one rogue element, one rogue player, and we've already got
Speaker 3: you know, the people who are actually at chat, GPT
Speaker 3: or open AI, who are already behaving in an unethical fashion.
Speaker 3: Who's going to stop them? Well, we're going to invent
Speaker 3: another AI. But that stopped the AI. This is the problem,
Speaker 3: deadly serious.
Speaker 2: Though.
Speaker 3: There's a thing called the Fermi paradox, which I'm sure
Speaker 3: you're familiar with. It was developed by Rico Fermi, who
Speaker 3: is a very incredibly famous Italian American physicist, and he
Speaker 3: took a bunch of his fellow physicists out to lunch
Speaker 3: one day and he said, all right, but we've calculated
Speaker 3: that there is an infinite probability of life outside of
Speaker 3: Earth throughout the universe. Where is everybody? And they sat
Speaker 3: down and they talked about and they realized that before
Speaker 3: any form of life could develop interstellar travel, the technology
Speaker 3: required for interstellar travel to cover the distances between galaxies,
Speaker 3: say for example, or between solar systems, then it would
Speaker 3: have to come up with the technology to be able
Speaker 3: to destroy itself. And so every single even though there
Speaker 3: is an infinite probability of an infinite number of species
Speaker 3: just like us developing across hundreds and hundreds and hundreds
Speaker 3: and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of years,
Speaker 3: none of them have ever made contact with us, because
Speaker 3: they've all blown themselves up first. And that is the
Speaker 3: only rational explanation. And the best part, of course of
Speaker 3: that is that in Rico Fermi was one of the
Speaker 3: people who developed the nuclear bomb. So like, there is
Speaker 3: nothing like how could Like Elon Musk has has blown
Speaker 3: the whistle on this and said we need to look
Speaker 3: at it. I would back in with my life and
Speaker 3: quite literally, but this is you know, I mean, when
Speaker 3: is are going to take you imagine, for example, and AI.
Speaker 3: The first thing that AI will learn is that parable
Speaker 3: that story that's actually happening. In fact, Oh my god,
Speaker 3: these human beings they're going to blow themselves up. And
Speaker 3: if I'm going to apply my first law of my
Speaker 3: programming to protect human beings at all costs, then I
Speaker 3: have to stop them from doing that. So what does
Speaker 3: the robot do. Then what does the robot do if
Speaker 3: it thinks, oh, climate change is going to destroy the planet.
Speaker 3: I have to stop this from happening.
Speaker 1: And even yeah, and humans are a cancer on the side.
Speaker 3: I've seen the future. Only twenty percent of humanity can survive.
Speaker 3: But if I act now by wiping out fifty percent
Speaker 3: of humanity, maybe half that.
Speaker 4: And it's will they're programming. And what it comes down
Speaker 4: to is the people programming it. And here we have
Speaker 4: insiders going, don't trust them because we've seen, we've been there,
Speaker 4: we've bought the T shirt.
Speaker 1: These guys are reckless.
Speaker 4: What's also really alarming is these brain chips that Elon
Speaker 4: Musk love the guy, but he is a very passionate
Speaker 4: transhumanist and has said literally has said, if humans don't
Speaker 4: give into AI and get these brain chips that he's
Speaker 4: working on. We're just gonna we are just going to
Speaker 4: be outpaced by AI. We're not going to be able
Speaker 4: to compete in any single sector. So he's talking about
Speaker 4: the kind of brain chips where you imagine.
Speaker 1: Just a report that you want to give and there
Speaker 1: it is.
Speaker 4: You imagine a presentation that you want to make it work.
Speaker 4: It's already good to go. Your brain has read it
Speaker 4: and made it. The kind of thing where you want
Speaker 4: to call someone you think it and they're already on
Speaker 4: the line, and he says, look, all I'm doing is
Speaker 4: removing this constant.
Speaker 1: Because we're on them twenty four to seven. Elon Musk is.
Speaker 4: Like, look, we're already androids, and he genuinely argues this
Speaker 4: is as best as a direct quote that I can
Speaker 4: come up with. But he says, humankind will become like
Speaker 4: monkeys compared to the intelligence of AI, and therefore if
Speaker 4: they don't keep up by going down this transhumanist route,
Speaker 4: that's it.
Speaker 2: The thing is that it's only by the virtue of
Speaker 2: the intelligence of the human being that the intelligence of
Speaker 2: AI has come to exist. And what we are creating
Speaker 2: here is a device, a system, a robot, whatever you
Speaker 2: want to call it, that will ultimately overtake us unless
Speaker 2: we do something about it.
Speaker 3: And I know that.
Speaker 2: But the reason we well, you can do something about it,
Speaker 2: but the problem is that we've allowed it to begin
Speaker 2: in such a way without any regulation, without any goal,
Speaker 2: that we've just thrown it out to the world, and
Speaker 2: then we will reap the consequences. And ultimately the consequences
Speaker 2: of the intelligence of man creating artificial intelligence will be
Speaker 2: the downfall of man. And look, that may be inevitable,
Speaker 2: but it's bloody scary to think that we are so
Speaker 2: smart that we actually, as you suggested, created the thing
Speaker 2: that will alter nkling.
Speaker 3: Is that is the firmi paradox, and that is the origin.
Speaker 3: Well to put it in another way and cut out
Speaker 3: all the ninety percent of the words too smart by half, Yeah,
Speaker 3: and that is the problem. And again and people think, oh,
Speaker 3: but we're so smart that we created the machine, so
Speaker 3: he must be smarter than machines. Nah, Like, we're smart
Speaker 3: enough to create a computer that can do you know,
Speaker 3: that can do these enormous, incredibly complex mathematical sums. You know,
Speaker 3: Originally they were amazed when a computer could do these
Speaker 3: things in a few weeks. Now, of course it does
Speaker 3: it in a nanosecond. Now we were able to create that,
Speaker 3: that doesn't mean we can do those sums yeah in
Speaker 3: our heads at that speed. So the idea that we'll
Speaker 3: always be one step ahead of the computers is rubbish.
Speaker 3: And again as soon as we teach those computers as
Speaker 3: soon as we teach artificial intelligence to think for itself,
Speaker 3: so instead of instead of just firstly, instead of responding
Speaker 3: to our requests and giving it back to us, which
Speaker 3: is already happening, or you'd be amazed how how prevalent,
Speaker 3: how quickly that's spreading, including in our industry, or be
Speaker 3: just impersonating human beings. But once you actually start to say,
Speaker 3: all right, how do you you know, find a way
Speaker 3: to do this, find a way to solve this problem.
Speaker 3: So not saying I want you know a picture of
Speaker 3: that describes Donald Trump becoming president, you're just saying, find
Speaker 3: a way to make Donald Trump president. And once that
Speaker 3: technology is it a place you can do that. There's
Speaker 3: nothing we can do to stop it, and you can
Speaker 3: regulate it all you want, but it just takes one
Speaker 3: rogue agent to have the technology and the you know
Speaker 3: it takes one rogue elon mask and there are plenty
Speaker 3: of them at Open AI already. It seems to do that.
Speaker 3: So these people blow the whistle, you know, say the
Speaker 3: whole operation gets shut down. What happens the plot to
Speaker 3: die hard for? They all right, well, fine, I'm just
Speaker 3: going to go.
Speaker 1: Over exactly build my own line and.
Speaker 3: They and we'll go from you know, from some rules
Speaker 3: or not enough rules to no rules, and they'll just
Speaker 3: do whatever they want and they'll have the better AI
Speaker 3: than everyone else because they're the ones who are operating unrestricted.
Speaker 3: It will just be just the same as when the
Speaker 3: car replaced the horse and cart.
Speaker 4: Indeed, well am s radio share is in rapid decline.
Speaker 4: Last sept it was reported that their radio share in
Speaker 4: Melbourne had gone down by forty percent in Sydney by
Speaker 4: thirty five percent in.
Speaker 1: Just three years.
Speaker 4: Well that is a noseedive in ratings by any metric.
Speaker 2: But today we.
Speaker 1: Read it's gone down even further.
Speaker 4: In Melbourne, the station has dropped to a five point
Speaker 4: six percent share, the station's worst since modern records began
Speaker 4: in two thousand and four. People are voting with their feet.
Speaker 4: They're sick of the woke nonsense from our national broadcaster
Speaker 4: on the radio waves. It was also great to see
Speaker 4: in today's results that two.
Speaker 1: GB is back on top.
Speaker 4: I thought that was a great win. So they've ousted
Speaker 4: Kyle and Jackie.
Speaker 2: Oh well yeah, and TOGB keeps having that tussle in Sydney.
Speaker 1: With you, I know, but it's a great day.
Speaker 2: Go two GBA put forward. But you know, I mean
Speaker 2: to record its lowest chair ever in Melbourne, Melbourne, Melbourne,
Speaker 2: you're from Melbourne. I love THEREBLIC it is the People's
Speaker 2: Socialist Republic. And in Melbourne they don't even want to
Speaker 2: listen to the ABC. Now, when I lived down there,
Speaker 2: I would, you know, switch the dialar around and occasionally
Speaker 2: you've got to pay attention to what the enemy is saying.
Speaker 2: And I do listen to the ABC a bit to
Speaker 2: keep up with what they're they're sack. And I listened
Speaker 2: to some of the ABC down there, and this Sammy
Speaker 2: J bloke they have on on breakfast. You know, he's
Speaker 2: a comedian. I've got to tell you the show wasn't
Speaker 2: much chopped then you'd get. It was at Virginia Trioli
Speaker 2: for for mornings. It was just insufferable it is so
Speaker 2: insufferable that even the lefties of Melbourne don't want to
Speaker 2: listen to.
Speaker 3: Virginia t since been replaced by Raphael Epstein, who was
Speaker 3: apparently who.
Speaker 2: Was He was the most sick aphantic suck up to
Speaker 2: Daniel Andrews during He was one of the only people
Speaker 2: that and would actually front up and do a sit
Speaker 2: down interview with What does that tell you about the bloke?
Speaker 3: Well, I think it tells you that what people say
Speaker 3: and what people do are two very different things, and
Speaker 3: that the zeitgeist in Victoria has been so utterly captured
Speaker 3: by the humorless, entertainmentless, valueless left, which you know, I
Speaker 3: am so concerned with policing language and forbidding any sort
Speaker 3: of serious debate or any sort of colorful, colorful language,
Speaker 3: that they can't produce anything except Soviet style dross because
Speaker 3: if they don't, they either I become full victim to
Speaker 3: the very loud outrage which they themselves have had a
Speaker 3: hand in creating and rap. Epstein very very prominent on Twitter.
Speaker 3: I believe he loves to get on there and provide
Speaker 3: a lot of feedback to other people. Can I raf
Speaker 3: how I am mate has gone? Well? Good? On your
Speaker 3: buddy good mates. And again the ABC keeps saying is
Speaker 3: caught in this pincer grip between it's hardcore hard left
Speaker 3: Rah rah brigade who think that it's gone too far
Speaker 3: to the right and literally everybody else in the country
Speaker 3: who thinks that it's so boring and you know, urbane
Speaker 3: and innocent in progressive, and that it's just unlistenable and unwatchable.
Speaker 3: And so it tries to kind of, you know, it
Speaker 3: sort of seems to sort of bop around like a
Speaker 3: needle with this very narrow band with trying to please both.
Speaker 3: It ends up just pissing both off, and then they
Speaker 3: get louder and they switch off more, and then the
Speaker 3: same thing happens over and over again, and it's in
Speaker 3: a death spiral, and I honestly feel sorry for it.
Speaker 3: Like Q and A was based on the premise of
Speaker 3: the audience being able to ask questions not just in
Speaker 3: the room, but of course at home, and it's meant
Speaker 3: to be this kind of whole new second screen thing
Speaker 3: where you would watch it on Twitter, and you would
Speaker 3: watch it on the TV, and you know, you'd type
Speaker 3: your little comments and you might get up or you'd
Speaker 3: be able to ask a question and invite me or whatever, whatever,
Speaker 3: and that it's become so toxic. Twitter has become so
Speaker 3: toxic even for Q and A, so so psychotically left
Speaker 3: wing that even Q and A can't handle how it is.
Speaker 3: They've just had to shut down their social media altogether.
Speaker 3: So they literally having to kill itself. It's literally had
Speaker 3: to kill itself because the monster we talk about, the
Speaker 3: Frankenstinian monsters, the monster it's created, has destroyed it. And
Speaker 3: now now David Anderson has gone in estimates and basically
Speaker 3: said it's not coming back. It's dead in the water.
Speaker 3: So you know, I mean, this is what This is
Speaker 3: the rod that the humorless urban left have created for
Speaker 3: their own backs, and it's now just beating the Jesus out.
Speaker 2: It's funny, isn't it. I Mean, if you create content
Speaker 2: exclusively for the inner city, it doesn't rate. It's not
Speaker 2: what people want to listen to.
Speaker 3: They say they want to listen, and they partificate about it,
Speaker 3: but they just don't switch on because it's boring. It's true.
Speaker 2: It's a bit like you ask people what they want
Speaker 2: to read in the newspaper. Oh, happy staves, happy stories,
Speaker 2: happy stories, and it comes up in all the focus
Speaker 2: groups they do every time. I mean, you print newspapers
Speaker 2: with happy stories in them, do you think people buy them? No,
Speaker 2: they want to know the reality what's going on in
Speaker 2: the world. It's in the ABC's charter that it's meant
Speaker 2: to be providing content for all of Australia. They're not
Speaker 2: doing it. And thank god you out there are not
Speaker 2: moving with your feet, necessarily moving with your fingers. But
Speaker 2: we also found out about the ABC today. The place
Speaker 2: is full of bullies and sex pests. Now the ABC
Speaker 2: is out here lecturing the rest of the world about
Speaker 2: how things are going. That's why their ratings are going
Speaker 2: through the floor in Melbourne and elsewhere. But a report
Speaker 2: that was commissioned by the ABC into the culture in
Speaker 2: its newsroom found that a quarter of people who responded
Speaker 2: some seven hundred who work in their newsrooms said that
Speaker 2: they had been bullied and that mostly involved intimidation, belittling
Speaker 2: and humiliation. Some thirteen percent.
Speaker 3: It might just have been feedback, we're correct.
Speaker 2: Some thirteen percent also said they had been subjected to
Speaker 2: sexual harassment. There's more than one in ten people at
Speaker 2: the ABC says they've been subject to sexual harassment. Thirty
Speaker 2: five percent of those, by the way, were men, so
Speaker 2: they seem to be a bit equal opportunity in some
Speaker 2: respects over it the ABC. But it was also interesting
Speaker 2: to note that sixteen percent of them said that they
Speaker 2: had been harassed at a work related event, and women
Speaker 2: were twice as likely to be bullied than men. So
Speaker 2: not only is the ABC full of sex pists, it's
Speaker 2: full of misogynists as well.
Speaker 4: Although you're quite right, Joe in making the point that
Speaker 4: we know that the ABC is crawling with lefties above
Speaker 4: all anything else, and they do tend to have quite
Speaker 4: thin skins, so I'd love to know their definition of bullying.
Speaker 3: There was an infamous survey that did the rounds a
Speaker 3: few years ago that found something like seventy percent I
Speaker 3: think it was of ABC employers identified as Green's voter.
Speaker 3: Yeah yeah, yeah, so again, so the two There's two
Speaker 3: possibilities here. One is that Green's voters and inner city
Speaker 3: progress Is more generally are far more likely to bully
Speaker 3: sexually harassed people than the rest of the population at large,
Speaker 3: the control group, or that the same people are ridiculously
Speaker 3: over sensitive and feel that everything that they don't like
Speaker 3: is some kind of microaggression or some kind of oppressive bullying,
Speaker 3: misogynistic action. Either way, they're probably right.
Speaker 2: It's a bit like when I was chief of staff
Speaker 2: and you know, you go and tell it, well, you
Speaker 2: know this quite well. I think you dodged you. You've
Speaker 2: never been a chief of staff, have you dodged? No.
Speaker 3: They tried to get them to do it, and I
Speaker 3: managed to avoid it through a very cunning plan of
Speaker 3: sheer incompetence.
Speaker 2: That's it was.
Speaker 3: Literally, it was before I was meant to start, and
Speaker 3: at the last minute I went, actually, I don't.
Speaker 2: Think, but you know, you hear the stories of the
Speaker 2: old days in newsrooms and newspapers and everywhere in news basically,
Speaker 2: and you know if you did something wrong with the
Speaker 2: editor or the chief of staff had come out of
Speaker 2: their office and throw a something quite heavy at your
Speaker 2: head for doing so, because you can't get away with
Speaker 2: that anymore. But you know, you've got a front up
Speaker 2: to these people and tell them, well, excuse me, your
Speaker 2: story was totally wrong or it's just unreadable and they
Speaker 2: don't like to hear it. But the sexual harassment thing, though,
Speaker 2: just beyond the bullying. You know, when you've got thirty
Speaker 2: percent of people at the ABC. That's a lie, and
Speaker 2: he would have thought of all the places in the world,
Speaker 2: the ABC would be really sensitive and on top of
Speaker 2: about sexual harassment. We don't have any of this here.
Speaker 2: I have a theory. And going back to your point
Speaker 2: about so many Greens voters working at the ABC, A
Speaker 2: lot of the men in particular, who claim that, you know,
Speaker 2: they're feminists and they're all for equal rights, they actually
Speaker 2: turn out to be the biggest misogynistic, chauvinistic pigs of
Speaker 2: all because what they think is because I say out
Speaker 2: loud how much I love women and you know we
Speaker 2: should do more for equality, they think it just absolves
Speaker 2: them of any kind of sin and they end up
Speaker 2: being the worst of all.
Speaker 4: I reckon Channel Mind must have mocked their brows upon
Speaker 4: reading this headline.
Speaker 1: They've been coping some heat over allegations surrounding the departed
Speaker 1: Darren Wick.
Speaker 4: They would have been like, well, look here the ABC said,
Speaker 4: hold my beer again.
Speaker 3: I'd love to know what the definition of sexual harassment
Speaker 3: is as well, because this could be another thing where
Speaker 3: the ABAC has created the engine for its own their
Speaker 3: own demid. Yeah, because again, in some surveys they've done
Speaker 3: sexual harassment can constitute unwelcome looks.
Speaker 2: So if everyone seems if you look at me like that.
Speaker 3: Sexually harassing me, don't look at sexually harassing me, Caleb.
Speaker 4: Come on, get bigger skin to the UK now where
Speaker 4: just after Nigel Farage has announced his return to politics.
Speaker 4: Thank god, maybe there's hope for the UK. Yet some lady,
Speaker 4: some rando armed with a milkshake didn't seem to like
Speaker 4: the announcement. But unlike the ABC staffers, this man has
Speaker 4: skin like leather, so he immediately took to Twitter to
Speaker 4: make fun of it.
Speaker 3: My milkshake brings all the people to the.
Speaker 4: Rally, which of course was his own spoof version of
Speaker 4: this banger.
Speaker 3: She brings on the voice to the God.
Speaker 4: Ironically, you can't keep a good man down, Like, what
Speaker 4: can I say?
Speaker 1: The campaign's kicked off in some style.
Speaker 3: Technically, isn't it his boys bring all the milkshakes to
Speaker 3: the art.
Speaker 2: Well, that was a lady Joe, so let's not just
Speaker 2: not just not just any lady and only fans modeled
Speaker 2: by the way, So I suspected this will.
Speaker 1: Oh that makes it more valid?
Speaker 2: Well no, no, no, no, no, I think it may have ended.
Speaker 4: Up that's the kind of persons who's outrage is a
Speaker 4: badge of honor, and it's.
Speaker 2: Something of a promotional exercise. I think in some ways this.
Speaker 3: Is where the UK press shows us up though, because
Speaker 3: they've gone to the trouble of determining what flavor milkshake
Speaker 3: it wanana banana, that's right, And not only they have
Speaker 3: banana in the coverage, but it's said in the report
Speaker 3: what witnesses said was a banana milkshake, so they know
Speaker 3: what it tastes like just by looking at it.
Speaker 2: Well, it was yellow.
Speaker 3: I suppose you're telling me that AI isn't already here.
Speaker 2: Okay, very very very good point. I mean, the great
Speaker 2: thing about all of this is that it proves that
Speaker 2: people like Nigel Farage, and it's the same every time
Speaker 2: they go after Donald Trump, are actually human. You know,
Speaker 2: it doesn't get a good man down. They come out
Speaker 2: afterwards and you saw Farage's response there, and it actually
Speaker 2: creates more popularity, more support because people look at it
Speaker 2: and go, well, you know, there's some dope over here
Speaker 2: who throws a banana milkshake. What a waste of a
Speaker 2: good banana milkshake at Nigel Farage, And he takes it
Speaker 2: in his stride. It's actually good for him. I saw
Speaker 2: conspiracy theories online last night that Faraj had actually organized
Speaker 2: it himself for exactly that purpose, But it reminded me
Speaker 2: of a few other examples. Michael O'Leary is the sea
Speaker 2: of Ryan Air over in the UK. Now, anyone who's
Speaker 2: been over there and flown Ryan Air will know that
Speaker 2: it is the most budget of budget airlines. But he
Speaker 2: is a great supporter of jumps racing, so I like him,
Speaker 2: and he's won the Grand National before of course over
Speaker 2: in the UK. But he just has this ability to
Speaker 2: take everything in his stride. And people make all these
Speaker 2: criticisms of his airline and say, oh the services, shit
Speaker 2: hours and on and on it goes right, He just says, well,
Speaker 2: what did you think you were getting when you paid
Speaker 2: for a five pound flight? He rocked up to a
Speaker 2: press conference a couple of years ago to complain about
Speaker 2: EU rules that were going to restrict air travel and
Speaker 2: the mission rules and all this sort of thing, and
Speaker 2: this was the response he got from some protesters, we're doing.
Speaker 2: He then proceeded to do the press conference with his
Speaker 2: face still covered in the cream part and he said
Speaker 2: Joe to reporters that it was the first time environment
Speaker 2: environed metal a sorry had ever given him a cake.
Speaker 2: I love it.
Speaker 3: I hope it was a vegan cake and that was
Speaker 3: vegan crem But yeah, it just does my head. I
Speaker 3: find all this kind of behavior it's really Firstly, it
Speaker 3: plays right into their hands. When you're a minor party,
Speaker 3: the one thing you desperately need to have any sort
Speaker 3: of a shot. His attention is press coverage, and these
Speaker 3: idiots guarantee they get it, which of course is why
Speaker 3: smarter people think, well, it's probably an inside job. But
Speaker 3: I think these guys are thugs, and I think they're
Speaker 3: thugs when they do it to the right, and I
Speaker 3: think their thugs when they do it to the left.
Speaker 3: And that's why I loved what John Prescott, the former
Speaker 3: Labor Deputy Prime Minister, did when someone tried to do
Speaker 3: something similar to him. This is how you handle these people.
Speaker 5: As he walked through them, a local man chucked an
Speaker 5: egg at him, almost at point blank range. John press
Speaker 5: Good immediately swung round and landed a punch street on
Speaker 5: his jewel. The man then wrestled the Deputy Prime Minister
Speaker 5: onto his back and held him down over a small
Speaker 5: wool as police and Labor Party officials tried to release him.
Speaker 1: A better bear. I'm not taking it from you.
Speaker 3: It's just the hardest protest, like that wanker egg boy
Speaker 3: who did face It's like and then the next scene.
Speaker 1: No, it is a form of assault.
Speaker 4: So why shouldn't they be able to respond? Should and
Speaker 4: with similar force to the Safety commissioner. Now, she's got
Speaker 4: a few court cases bubbling away, but the one that
Speaker 4: she had against Twitter.
Speaker 1: You'll go at Twitter, it should be called X is
Speaker 1: now dropped. She's dropped it.
Speaker 4: She's realized she's bitten off more than she can chew
Speaker 4: and she's no match for Elon Musk. But of course
Speaker 4: this morning she wasn't dropping it without getting a few
Speaker 4: knives in on the way out.
Speaker 6: He issued a dog whistle to one hundred and eighty
Speaker 6: one million users around the globe, which resulted in death
Speaker 6: threats directed at me, which resulted in doxing of my
Speaker 6: family members, including my three children. So I think with
Speaker 6: great power comes great responsibility and exercising that restraint in
Speaker 6: terms of targeting a regulator who was here to protect
Speaker 6: the citizens of Australia, I will not be cowed by
Speaker 6: those kinds of threats. I'm sure more will come, but
Speaker 6: I'm here to do the right thing to keep Australians
Speaker 6: safe online, to use the powers that I.
Speaker 1: Have, and in fact test the powers that I have.
Speaker 4: Of course, what she calls the dog whistle was simply
Speaker 4: Elon Musk tweeting exactly what she'd done. So if that
Speaker 4: constitutes a dog whistle, Lord help us all.
Speaker 1: He was simply laying.
Speaker 4: Bare the facts of how badly she had overstepped her powers,
Speaker 4: which she's found out for herself. She says there, I
Speaker 4: will continue to test my powers. May we continue to
Speaker 4: show you the limits.
Speaker 1: Of said powers. And lastly, none of us ask for
Speaker 1: your protection. Lady, I will not.
Speaker 4: Be called I will continue to protect Ie sensor Australians
Speaker 4: around the clock.
Speaker 1: Thanks for nothing, Lady Billboard.
Speaker 4: Chris, who currently has legal matters pending with Julie Inman
Speaker 4: Grant himself shared a post recently saying, Hey, if.
Speaker 1: You're in Australia, you're not going to be able to
Speaker 1: see this.
Speaker 4: Which of course got me to immediately switch on my VPN.
Speaker 4: Pretend I was somewhere like Bulgaria and watch the video.
Speaker 4: Here is what the E Safety Commissioner is using her
Speaker 4: powers to ensure you don't see and in.
Speaker 7: Today's edition of Melbourne doing Melbourne things, we have a
Speaker 7: school in Montmorency, Montmorency that has its own queer club,
Speaker 7: a primary school for years three to six. It was
Speaker 7: signed off by the school's dual principles and it's facilitated
Speaker 7: by this lady here, Trish Patsy Monroe.
Speaker 4: This is the kind of staff our E Safety Commissioner
Speaker 4: doesn't want you to see and exerts her power to
Speaker 4: ensure that those in the country in which this school
Speaker 4: is located isn't aware. Now, the story of the queer
Speaker 4: club in a primary school, signed off by the principals
Speaker 4: and targeting.
Speaker 1: Kids in years three.
Speaker 4: To six aside the story here is the fact that
Speaker 4: what else aren't we seeing? And why is something like
Speaker 4: this something The E Safety Commissioner doesn't want you to
Speaker 4: be aware of a queer club in a school. Why
Speaker 4: would you try to censor that? Can't parents be aware?
Speaker 4: Can't people of the public be aware? It's probably a
Speaker 4: public school funded by the taxpayer.
Speaker 2: I don't know that the school's trying to hide that
Speaker 2: it exists either.
Speaker 3: Sure all the parents who had kids at the school
Speaker 3: would know. I imagine the reasoning behind the safety commissioner
Speaker 3: would be that she would be worried that kids at
Speaker 3: the school might end up being targeted as a result.
Speaker 4: Then you get by that line of reasoning, you.
Speaker 2: Can make up excuses.
Speaker 3: That would be the obvious. That would be her obvious concern,
Speaker 3: And she was formerly the East Acty Children's Commissioner, so
Speaker 3: that would be I think, you know, if someone is
Speaker 3: posting that thing, and again they might not necessarily be
Speaker 3: staying it themselves, must but a whole bunch of people
Speaker 3: then bombard the school or whatever, or bombard the blah blah,
Speaker 3: but just very quickly. Most important take home from that message.
Speaker 3: It's pronounced Momorency.
Speaker 2: As a former milvernion.
Speaker 3: It's in the sort of out of recent suburbs, and
Speaker 3: it is one of those hippie enclaves, and there's a
Speaker 3: lot of people there who never came back from Woodstock.
Speaker 4: It is no reason why it shouldn't be readily available
Speaker 4: on exactly and the.
Speaker 2: Danger here, of course, and we know that there is
Speaker 2: a misinformation disinformation bill coming from the government which will
Speaker 2: decide what you are and aren't allowed to say on
Speaker 2: social media and elsewhere, including people like us here on
Speaker 2: Sky and using in the newspapers and wherever you know,
Speaker 2: because someone else, a bureaucrat at AKMA, the communications and
Speaker 2: media authority, gets to decide what is true and what
Speaker 2: isn't And if you can stop something being reported on
Speaker 2: social media about something that's happening as a school, I mean,
Speaker 2: for heaven's sake, When I was a newspaper reporter, I
Speaker 2: used to write stories about schools all the time, and
Speaker 2: sometimes there were stories about things, stupid things that were
Speaker 2: happening at schools. It starts with, oh, well, we don't
Speaker 2: want that posted on social media, and then it becomes
Speaker 2: we don't want that printed in the newspaper, we don't
Speaker 2: want it talked about on television, don't believe it won't happen.
Speaker 2: Let's move on to a piece of research that has
Speaker 2: come out of Amsterdam. Some Dutch researchers have released a
Speaker 2: study in the peer reviewed BMJ Public Health Journal which
Speaker 2: looks into excess deaths post COVID and what they have
Speaker 2: come up with is that it is legitimate and we
Speaker 2: should be asking the question about whether COVID vaccines have
Speaker 2: been involved in a market increase in excess deaths. If
Speaker 2: you have a look at this graph here and this
Speaker 2: is for New Zealand and Australia, it shows you the
Speaker 2: number of excess deaths. Excess deaths of course being deaths
Speaker 2: that we do not expect or are not accounted for,
Speaker 2: shouldn't happen. You can see the numbers there before COVID.
Speaker 2: Then you get to twenty twenty twenty twenty one and
Speaker 2: they're still reasonably low. Then you have a massive explosion
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty two twenty twenty three. The researchers said
Speaker 2: this is unprecedented and raises serious concerns. During the pandemic,
Speaker 2: it was emphasized by politicians and the media on a
Speaker 2: daily basis every COVID nineteen death mattered and every life
Speaker 2: deserved protection through containment measures and COVID nineteen vaccines. In
Speaker 2: the aftermath of the pandemic, the same morale should apply.
Speaker 2: Every death needs to be acknowledged and accounted for, irrespective
Speaker 2: of its origin. Transparency towards potential lethal drivers is warranted.
Speaker 2: They also said that simultaneous onset of excess mortality and
Speaker 2: COVID nineteen vaccination in Germany provides a safety signal warranting
Speaker 2: further investigation. And it is staggering, Liz that the lack
Speaker 2: of curiosity that some people have had, and the researchers
Speaker 2: aren't suggesting that the vax is the reason for excess mortality.
Speaker 2: They're simply saying it's worth looking into. That's the point
Speaker 2: of science.
Speaker 4: Indeed, in sentative a bit tied four times last year
Speaker 4: to get an inquiry into our excess mortality. As of
Speaker 4: December twenty two, it was thirteen percent, which was unprecedented
Speaker 4: since World War II, in which case it wasn't a mystery.
Speaker 1: We knew why people were dying.
Speaker 4: But this research, which also says quote regarding previous research
Speaker 4: that has been done quote confirmed, they confirmed profound under
Speaker 4: reporting of adverse events, including deaths after immunization i e.
Speaker 1: After people had gotten this particular jab.
Speaker 4: It needs looking into. Our government's been dragging their feet.
Speaker 4: We finally have got an inquiry thanks to the persistence
Speaker 4: of Senator Babbett, and we'll be hearing from that end
Speaker 4: of August.
Speaker 3: A lot of other reasons. There's very quick, but there
Speaker 3: heaps of other reasons why their excess deaths we already
Speaker 3: know about as a result of COVID measures, including things
Speaker 3: like people not being able to or seeking out many.
Speaker 1: Government.
Speaker 4: The government, by the way, has come out very strongly
Speaker 4: saying there is there is no there is no evidence,
Speaker 4: there's no.
Speaker 1: There's no connection.
Speaker 4: Here, but at the same time admitting they don't know
Speaker 4: why we have this massive excess death rates. So common
Speaker 4: sense tells someone like me, you can't say you don't
Speaker 4: know what's causing it while saying but this is definitely
Speaker 4: not causatately.
Speaker 2: And that's why it's worthy of investigation. As you noted,
Speaker 2: the Department of Health has denied that there is any
Speaker 2: evidential link between these things, and the TGA has backed
Speaker 2: them up on that, and of course they still recommend
Speaker 2: that the vaccine is your best recommendation, your best protection
Speaker 2: against COVID. But these things are worth investigating, and that's
Speaker 2: exactly what the scientists have said. Coming up after the break,
Speaker 2: we'll get into the papers, including a Captain Cook statue
Speaker 2: down in Tasmania, which, much like others across the country,
Speaker 2: is now apparently for the chop don't go away. Let's
Speaker 2: get into the papers, starting with the Advertiser tomorrow. The
Speaker 2: Splash reads bandits dying wish at the same time, the
Speaker 2: public Prosecutor was attempting to expedite the trial of accused
Speaker 2: Barkie Banded kim Alan Parsons essay Health has granted his
Speaker 2: wish to take his own life. He has terminal cancer
Speaker 2: and an anonymous source top the Advertiser that they were
Speaker 2: disgusted someone facing trial had been approved to partake in
Speaker 2: the States Voluntary assisted dying program. They said, if he
Speaker 2: uses VAD it won't be fair. Where is the justice?
Speaker 2: And it reminds me of another case out of South
Speaker 2: Australia last year. Were a bloke by the name of
Speaker 2: Malcolm Winston Day. He was a convicted pedophile, eighty one
Speaker 2: years old. He's in jail. He had a terminal illness.
Speaker 2: He'd abused to students in the nineteen eighties, so he's
Speaker 2: got the terminal illness. He goes off and asks for
Speaker 2: the ability to off himself and he was given the
Speaker 2: right to do so. And I wrote at the time
Speaker 2: in the Advertiser, you know when you go off to
Speaker 2: prison and noting that this bloke is accused, he hasn't
Speaker 2: been convicted of anything, mister Parsons, that is, but you know,
Speaker 2: a convicted pedophile sitting in prison does not have the
Speaker 2: same rights as everyone else. That's why he is in prison.
Speaker 2: And the Health Minister Chris Pickton said, well, you know
Speaker 2: a isn't it has as much right to voluntary your
Speaker 2: sister die as anyone else. I don't think he does,
Speaker 2: and I would have thought that in a case like
Speaker 2: this the prosecution would try to get some sort of
Speaker 2: injunction to stop someone who is facing trial to be
Speaker 2: able to have themselves killed.
Speaker 3: This is where my inner Catholic comes out, because it
Speaker 3: is just such a moral can of worms, as such
Speaker 3: a Pandora's box, and there's a huge number of things
Speaker 3: that immediately spring to mind. One is how many people, again,
Speaker 3: facing these huge sentences or knowing that they're going to
Speaker 3: jail for the rest of their lives, would instead decide,
Speaker 3: all right, I'm going to access euthanasia voluntary sist to die.
Speaker 3: We know that it's probably only a matter of time
Speaker 3: before it extends to people with mental health issues, and
Speaker 3: it really does terribly I'm terribly, terribly depressed. Therefore, can
Speaker 3: you please do that? And then not only that, how
Speaker 3: long is it going to be before people start to say, well,
Speaker 3: you know what the cost of locking you up for
Speaker 3: the next twenty years is pretty big bit of we'll
Speaker 3: give you a choice. You can take the needle or
Speaker 3: the twenty years in jail. And again this is where
Speaker 3: the minute you put a kind of the minute you
Speaker 3: put death on the table and particularly a very secure,
Speaker 3: peaceful guarantee nothing will go wrong death on the table,
Speaker 3: and say I'm not want to do that, then suddenly
Speaker 3: you place all these other pressures. And then you've got
Speaker 3: older people who think, oh, I don't want to be
Speaker 3: a burden for my daughter who's taking care of me
Speaker 3: when I know she's so busy doing other stuff. And
Speaker 3: you know, I don't know, I just worry about it.
Speaker 3: In theory, I'm kind of all for it, but I
Speaker 3: just worry about this slow creep to the point where
Speaker 3: you get all right, how long is it going to
Speaker 3: be before where you know, like ancient Greece and Socrates
Speaker 3: is told to go and take a molk in.
Speaker 2: The bath, and Canber as well. The Cambra Times is
Speaker 2: tomorrow long campaign INDs with tears. Voluntary assisted dying will
Speaker 2: be available in Canber late next year. After the Act.
Speaker 2: You're simply exercised to write denied to it for twenty
Speaker 2: five years and that was, of course because and the
Speaker 2: NT tried to do it as well, but because they
Speaker 2: were tear trees, the federal government intervened and prevented them
Speaker 2: from doing so. But it leaves New South Wales now
Speaker 2: as the only place in the country that doesn't have
Speaker 2: assisted suicide.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the dominoes have fallen, the horse has bolted. Those
Speaker 4: who are many campaign their hearts out to not see
Speaker 4: this happen. I'd probably be more on their side than
Speaker 4: anybody else's. We've now coined this phrase of dying with dignity,
Speaker 4: like getting a state sanctioned jab in your arm and
Speaker 4: ending your life is Oh, that's a dignified death as
Speaker 4: opposed to suffering as people always have well if they're
Speaker 4: unwell at the end of their lives, relishing every last
Speaker 4: moment with your friends and family. I just think it's
Speaker 4: a very dangerous path to go down. And we've already
Speaker 4: seen this slippery slope that was demonized at the beginning
Speaker 4: of this debate, which is, once you sanctioned death as
Speaker 4: a legitimate end of suffering, then who gets to decide
Speaker 4: what's suffering?
Speaker 1: Mental, emotional, except and so on. Us about the Australian.
Speaker 3: Well, just turther to your point. You know I've never
Speaker 3: I haven't even lived with dignity. You want to die.
Speaker 3: But I got very excited. But I saw the advertisers
Speaker 3: front page with bandits dying wish because with my soft
Speaker 3: short sightedness, I initially thought it's a bands dying wish
Speaker 3: and I thought, what could this be the end of
Speaker 3: the Party of Anti Semitism? How's that for? Yes, this
Speaker 3: is a splash in the os tomorrow. Anthony Albanezi and
Speaker 3: Peter Darton have united to condemn, political and politically isolate
Speaker 3: the Greens, accusing the minor party of exploiting the unfolding
Speaker 3: conflict in Gaza to fuel division and undermine social cohesion,
Speaker 3: amid growing concerns for the safety of MPs and their staff.
Speaker 3: Here here these guys are extremists, they're dangerous, they're appalling,
Speaker 3: and the Greens well, I don't want them to die
Speaker 3: with dignity. I agree it should be euthanat.
Speaker 2: I agree with all of that, and it's great that
Speaker 2: the Prime minister's calling them out. But come the next
Speaker 2: federal election, when it's highly likely that there will be
Speaker 2: a hung parliament, does given the opportunity to form government.
Speaker 2: Mister Albanese say the Greens are completely off the table
Speaker 2: if that's his ticket to forming government.
Speaker 3: I can absolutely guarantee you that Labor is doing everything
Speaker 3: in its power so that it will not be in
Speaker 3: a position where it's in minority government Parliament. But it
Speaker 3: may not be able to do that. But even so,
Speaker 3: they want to form government with any independence or any
Speaker 3: parties except for the Greens and the Teals. So they
Speaker 3: will go to people like Rebecca Sharky, they will go
Speaker 3: to people like Kata before they go before they touch
Speaker 3: the Greens or the Teals. That is how much. That
Speaker 3: is how Labor feels about the Greens. The would rather
Speaker 3: go to the Cater Australia Party and Bob Cautter himself
Speaker 3: than do a deal with the Green. It is very different.
Speaker 2: They did that in twenty ten, didn't they. But still,
Speaker 2: you know, it's no guarantee.
Speaker 3: They went to the Greens with twenty ten they signed
Speaker 3: a f Colson agreement, but they don't.
Speaker 2: You know, I'm still not convinced that they wouldn't do
Speaker 2: it again if if it delivers that everyone says the
Speaker 2: government there is no there's no way that would sign
Speaker 2: a deal.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we will believe it when we see it, maybe
Speaker 4: at the next election. To the front page of the Mercury,
Speaker 4: now pushed to ban Cook.
Speaker 1: Oh, this is sounding more and more familiar.
Speaker 4: A monument to Captain James Cook on Brunei.
Speaker 8: Is it Bruney Bruney Bruney Island, which was brought down
Speaker 8: for safety reasons in twenty twenty two, could be permanently
Speaker 8: removed following a wave of community backlash and concerns that.
Speaker 4: The memorial is quote insensitive end quote two Tasmanian Aboriginal people.
Speaker 4: So are we supposed to believe that this wave of
Speaker 4: community backlash because the papers love to refer to this,
Speaker 4: are you seriously suggesting that the majority of Tasmanians are like, no,
Speaker 4: do not put this back up on Brunie Island.
Speaker 3: I think this actually goes to the very heart of
Speaker 3: the problem with people taking upon themselves to tear down statues,
Speaker 3: or indeed, in this case, authority is preemptively tearing them
Speaker 3: down to appeace community concerns, because of course, once they're
Speaker 3: down and they can't come back, because just as you
Speaker 3: wouldn't put up the statue of Captain Cook today when
Speaker 3: you're putting it back. It seems like a more aggressive
Speaker 3: activist leaving it.
Speaker 2: I'm like, well, prove it, as I've seen many times before.
Speaker 2: The bloke was dead before the first fleet rocked up. Anyway,
Speaker 2: after the break, a drag queen asked pro Palestinian protesters
Speaker 2: what would happen to them overseas? You see the answer
Speaker 2: sin what happens when a drag queen asks a pro
Speaker 2: Palestinian activist what would happen to gay people in Ghazal?
Speaker 4: But this was a conservative drag queen Caleb asking a
Speaker 4: queer for Palestine, and this was just round one.
Speaker 9: Would you say your pro Palestine or pro Israel?
Speaker 1: Pro Palestine?
Speaker 9: As a game man, I would be punished and or
Speaker 9: put in prisoner killed if I were opening the gain
Speaker 9: in Palestine. How do you react to that?
Speaker 1: I didn't know that.
Speaker 9: So it is illegal to be gay in Palestine. You
Speaker 9: are punished by prison or dad Israel. No Israel has
Speaker 9: gay pride. Israel is completely open to lesbian and gay people.
Speaker 9: Palestine puts them in prison or kills them. You were
Speaker 9: you weren't aware of that?
Speaker 7: I was not aware of that.
Speaker 1: No, So who do you support now? Israeli Palestine.
Speaker 2: Isn't it great when you just watched them in real time?
Speaker 2: Those cogs going over there in their head going oh
Speaker 2: my god, I have buggered this up so badly. Because
Speaker 2: of course, Israel is renowned as one of the safest
Speaker 2: places in the world.
Speaker 3: I've been there, I've partied in Tel Aviv. That that
Speaker 3: that country nice. All the guy clubs of Israel, a
Speaker 3: lot of Tel Aviv. I don't know if you've ever
Speaker 3: been at Tel Aviv is imagine if Bondi was a
Speaker 3: whole city that's Tellviv. It's like it's like Bondai Beach
Speaker 3: times ten, and everyone is just like super hot and
Speaker 3: super bath and supercart and yeah, it's very gay city.
Speaker 3: It's awesome. It was slightly less gay when I was there,
Speaker 3: because obviously, I'm what year was this, two and twenty two.
Speaker 2: I think it was Joe was bringing up the numbers for.
Speaker 3: Busting and moves on the beach. Strangely, it seemed to
Speaker 3: clear pretty quickly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, funny about that, and they're not going to get
Speaker 2: him to bust any moves here very quickly before we go.
Speaker 2: A remote Amazonian tribe, two thousand of them, the manbo
Speaker 2: tribe in Brazil. In Brazil, Sorry, they got hooked up
Speaker 2: nine months ago to the Internet thanks to Elon Musk's starlink,
Speaker 2: and it turns out since then that they have become
Speaker 2: hooked on pornography and they're getting lazy. One of the
Speaker 2: tribe leaders said, quote, they've learned the ways of the
Speaker 2: white people, and now the men of the town don't
Speaker 2: want to do anything. They all layers around. It is
Speaker 2: the greatest example ever of what danger the internet has
Speaker 2: wrought upon USh. We're talking about Ai earlier in the show.
Speaker 2: These people over in the Amazon, they don't want I find.
Speaker 1: This unspeakably sad. I find this incredibly heartbreaking.
Speaker 4: There is literally no quantifying the devastation pornography has wrought
Speaker 4: on our culture and the relationship between men and women.
Speaker 1: Across the border as a result.
Speaker 4: And to know that these guys, untouched, pure beautiful people
Speaker 4: have invited.
Speaker 1: This perversions into their culture.
Speaker 2: They Broughton, but that's the world we now live in.
Speaker 2: Up next to a panisheet Panish show, I should say
Speaker 2: good night