# Frank is Frankly Hypocritical.

An episode of [Viced Rhino: The Podcast](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1536972599), 9 Oct 2026, 29 min.

Audio: https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/75631305/pod_censored_exposing_the_culture_war_on_truth_and_reality_part_2.mp3

Frank Turek continues to talk about the culture war on reality...and is apparently on the side fighting against reality. Cards: Is Frank Turek Against Reality?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt-PAwEVSRs The Cult Tactics of Christian Apologetics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xxNmoSkB0I Original Video: https://tinyurl.com/2753djhb Sources: Correct, Not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism: https://tinyurl.com/2w6dsnm5 The Health Risks of Gay Sex: https://tinyurl.com/3mwfet9s Mortality Among Men and Women in Same-Sex Marriage: A National Cohort Study of 8333 Danes: https://tinyurl.com/muh2y85r Sexual orientation and all-cause mortality: A population-based prospective cohort study in southern Sweden: https://tinyurl.com/5tfhhzwn Life expectancy by sexual orientation, England and Wales: March 2021 to March 2024: https://tinyurl.com/mru3d8y6 The Definition of Morality: https://tinyurl.com/fxcuk9a4 Minn. prisons commissioner disputes DHS figures on ICE detainers and inmate releases: https://tinyurl.com/2zkkx7wj USA: “We had whistles, they had guns”: Human Rights Violations in U.S. Immigration Enforcement Operations and the Case to Abolish ICE: https://tinyurl.com/mpwuypv9 No, There Isn’t a Trans Shooter Problem: https://tinyurl.com/5but2fnn What percentage of the US population is transgender?: https://tinyurl.com/mrn6h2v8 Violent victimization at the intersections of sexual orientation, gender identity, and race: National Crime Victimization Survey, 2017–2019: https://tinyurl.com/5d9n5ss9 Right‑wing extremist violence is more frequent and more deadly than left‑wing violence − what the data shows: https://tinyurl.com/3fbdvbu8 The Forgotten Socialist History of Martin Luther King Jr.: https://tinyurl.com/499d5kxj Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/viced-rhino-the-podcast--4623273/support. All my various links can be found here: http://links.vicedrhino.com This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org

## Transcript

[0:00] Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to my podcast. This is an audio
[0:03] Speaker 1: version of my videos, available to make listening to my
[0:06] Speaker 1: stuff in the background easier than YouTube makes it. But
[0:10] Speaker 1: since my videos are primarily made for YouTube, there may
[0:13] Speaker 1: be occasional references to visual materials. If you'd like this
[0:16] Speaker 1: podcast ad-free, you can join us on Patreon at patreon.com
[0:20] Speaker 1: slash vice rhino. Please enjoy.
[0:23] Speaker 2: Hello, and welcome to my channel. Vice Rhino here. Today,
[0:28] Speaker 2: I'm going to try and finish up with Frank Turek's
[0:29] Speaker 2: sermon on the culture war on truth and reality. Last time,
[0:32] Speaker 2: he started going through a list of supposed statements that
[0:35] Speaker 2: people fighting against reality will utter, and then he refutes
[0:38] Speaker 2: them with this one simple trick. Of course, the statements
[0:41] Speaker 2: were mostly straw men, and the one simple trick was
[0:44] Speaker 2: usually to engage in equivocation, where his refutation used similar
[0:47] Speaker 2: words but in a different sense than in the statement
[0:49] Speaker 2: he was refuting. So let's see if he continues that trend.
[0:59] Speaker 3: But when we get questions from non-believers, the one question
[1:03] Speaker 3: I normally always ask people is this. If Christianity were true,
[1:07] Speaker 3: would you become a Christian?
[1:09] Speaker 2: And every time I hear that question, I give the
[1:11] Speaker 2: same answer. I don't actually know. I would like to
[1:14] Speaker 2: say that I would stick to my guns. The Christian
[1:16] Speaker 2: God doesn't deserve worship, so I would refuse to worship him.
[1:20] Speaker 2: But I can't say for sure that when faced with
[1:22] Speaker 2: the prospect of eternal torture, I wouldn't at least go
[1:24] Speaker 2: through the motions of worshiping him out of abject terror.
[1:27] Speaker 2: But one thing is sure. If I were to become
[1:30] Speaker 2: a Christian, it would not be out of love for
[1:33] Speaker 2: the Christian God, because that dude is a genocidal maniac.
[1:37] Speaker 3: And 99 times out of 10, as we say in Mississippi,
[1:42] Speaker 3: the answer is no.
[1:44] Speaker 2: Is it just a flat out no? Or is it
[1:46] Speaker 2: a more qualified one like mine? I wouldn't be surprised
[1:48] Speaker 2: either way. Frank's whole thing is winning word games against
[1:51] Speaker 2: inexperienced college kids. But I expect that it is likely
[1:54] Speaker 2: that Frank is oversimplifying to the point of misrepresentation here.
[1:58] Speaker 3: No.
[1:59] Speaker 4: You wouldn't believe it if it were true. Why not?
[2:01] Speaker 4: Because it's not a head problem. It's a heart problem.
[2:04] Speaker 2: Your question was not, would you believe it if Christianity
[2:07] Speaker 2: were true? Your question was, would you become a Christian
[2:10] Speaker 2: if it were true? My saying I wouldn't want to
[2:12] Speaker 2: worship a genocidal maniac if he existed is not the
[2:15] Speaker 2: same as my saying I would refuse to believe that
[2:17] Speaker 2: he existed if he existed. There are characters in the Bible,
[2:21] Speaker 2: most notably Satan, who believe the Christian God exists but
[2:24] Speaker 2: are not Christians. I don't deny that the Christian God
[2:27] Speaker 2: exists because of a heart problem. That's where the I
[2:30] Speaker 2: wouldn't worship him if he did exist part comes in.
[2:33] Speaker 2: I deny his existence because the Bible gives him contradictory
[2:36] Speaker 2: and mutually exclusive characteristics, like saying that he is love
[2:39] Speaker 2: in 1 John 4, 8, and then when defining love
[2:41] Speaker 2: in 1 Corinthians 13, one of the first characteristics listed
[2:44] Speaker 2: as part of that definition is that love is not jealous. Meanwhile,
[2:48] Speaker 2: in Exodus 34, 14, it says that not only is
[2:51] Speaker 2: God jealous, but he is so jealous that his very
[2:54] Speaker 2: name is jealous. If God is love and love is
[2:57] Speaker 2: not jealous, then God cannot be jealous. Ergo, God as
[3:02] Speaker 2: described by the Bible does not exist.
[3:04] Speaker 4: They don't want it to be true.
[3:06] Speaker 3: They have desires that they think are more important than truth.
[3:13] Speaker 2: That's rich, coming from the guy who ignores all of
[3:15] Speaker 2: the actual data regarding anything LGBTQ related in order to
[3:18] Speaker 2: satiate his desire to enforce his bigotry. For instance, in
[3:22] Speaker 2: his book Correct Not Politically Correct, he says that being
[3:24] Speaker 2: homosexual can shorten your lifespan from 8 to 20 years.
[3:28] Speaker 2: His source for that number is a white paper published
[3:30] Speaker 2: by the Corporate Resource Council, an organization that, as far
[3:33] Speaker 2: as I can tell, was purely a propaganda machine that
[3:35] Speaker 2: attempted to push workplaces into adopting policies that would encourage
[3:38] Speaker 2: their employees to get married. Their website redirects to the
[3:43] Speaker 2: Alliance Defending Freedom website now, which, if you're unfamiliar, is
[3:46] Speaker 2: an anti-LGBTQ hate group. But anyway, his source is this
[3:49] Speaker 2: white paper published by an anti-gay marriage advocacy organization, and
[3:53] Speaker 2: their source for that number is a study that looked
[3:55] Speaker 2: into the lifespan of gay men between 1987 and 1992.
[3:56] Speaker 2: The height of the AIDS epidemic. When it was pointed
[4:01] Speaker 2: out to Frank that this is a problem for his claims,
[4:04] Speaker 2: and that more recent research shows the risk of mortality
[4:06] Speaker 2: to be much lower than it was during the height
[4:08] Speaker 2: of the AIDS crisis, with life expectancies being close to
[4:11] Speaker 2: the same for both homosexual and heterosexual men and women,
[4:14] Speaker 2: did he issue a correction? Well, let's watch.
[4:18] Speaker 3: I would imagine, and I don't know if there's studies
[4:20] Speaker 3: have been done on this since then, that gay men
[4:23] Speaker 3: lifespan is longer than it was at that time. Can
[4:27] Speaker 3: I ask you a question about that though? Does a
[4:29] Speaker 3: man and a woman inside of natural marriage have any
[4:34] Speaker 3: chance of getting that disease?
[4:50] Speaker 2: So there you go. Instead of correcting a factual error
[4:53] Speaker 2: in his book, he pivots to the but straight people
[4:56] Speaker 2: don't get AIDS talking point, which is itself a factual error.
[5:00] Speaker 2: Props to the guy arguing with Frank in that clip.
[5:02] Speaker 2: He did the hard work of actually reading Frank's book
[5:04] Speaker 2: and hunting down the sources to point out this error.
[5:06] Speaker 2: It made my job here a lot easier. And for
[5:09] Speaker 2: the record, two out of three of my sources for
[5:11] Speaker 2: the increase in lifespan for non-straight people were available prior
[5:14] Speaker 2: to the most recent edition of Frank's book, which still
[5:16] Speaker 2: claims that being homosexual shortens your lifespan from eight to
[5:19] Speaker 2: 20 years. Frank just doesn't care enough about truth or
[5:22] Speaker 2: reality to update his lies.
[5:25] Speaker 4: And you know what they'll do?
[5:26] Speaker 3: A lot of times they'll accuse you of something if
[5:32] Speaker 3: you're a Christian. In fact, what is the one thing
[5:35] Speaker 3: that most people dislike about Christians?
[5:38] Speaker 4: Ooh, I know!
[5:40] Speaker 2: It's the sexual abuse of children and their efforts to
[5:42] Speaker 2: cover it up!
[5:43] Speaker 4: What is it? Yes, hypocrisy!
[5:46] Speaker 2: Oh, I guess I was being more specific than Frank expected.
[5:49] Speaker 2: But I guess hypocrisy would include my answer?
[5:53] Speaker 3: Whenever somebody says to you that you're a hypocrite, here's
[5:58] Speaker 3: what I think you ought to say.
[6:00] Speaker 4: You're right. So?
[6:03] Speaker 2: So, as we covered in part one of this sermon,
[6:06] Speaker 2: Jesus said to take the log out of your own
[6:08] Speaker 2: eye before complaining about the speck in your brother's eye.
[6:10] Speaker 2: So until such a time as you stop being a hypocrite,
[6:13] Speaker 2: you can take your bigotry and shove it up your ass.
[6:17] Speaker 4: What follows from that? Does that mean what I believe
[6:20] Speaker 4: is false?
[6:22] Speaker 2: Not specifically, but it is certainly related.
[6:26] Speaker 3: No. No, not at all. By the way, do you
[6:31] Speaker 3: realize that everybody's a hypocrite?
[6:33] Speaker 2: Yeah, but the thing is, there's a big difference between
[6:37] Speaker 2: being the kind of hypocrite who, say, tells their kids
[6:39] Speaker 2: to eat healthy and then snacks on junk food once
[6:41] Speaker 2: they're in bed, and being the kind of hypocrite who
[6:44] Speaker 2: lies about the data related to LGBTQ people in order
[6:47] Speaker 2: to justify bigotry, all while claiming that reality is on
[6:50] Speaker 2: their side and that lying is wrong. Am I a
[6:52] Speaker 2: hypocrite in some areas of my life? Undoubtedly, yes. Am
[6:56] Speaker 2: I a hypocrite when it comes to actually important things?
[6:59] Speaker 2: I try really hard not to be, which is a
[7:01] Speaker 2: lot more than I can say for Frank.
[7:03] Speaker 4: Everybody's a hypocrite. That's why we all need a savior.
[7:07] Speaker 2: No, actually, according to Christianity, we need a savior because
[7:11] Speaker 2: God made people who didn't know the difference between right
[7:13] Speaker 2: and wrong, told them not to eat fruit that would
[7:15] Speaker 2: make them know the difference between right and wrong, and
[7:17] Speaker 2: then put a snake in the garden that he knew
[7:19] Speaker 2: would talk them into eating the fruit, which they had
[7:21] Speaker 2: no way of knowing was a wrong thing to do.
[7:24] Speaker 4: None of us can live up to the standard.
[7:27] Speaker 3: Yeah.
[7:28] Speaker 2: God made us incapable of living up to the standard
[7:30] Speaker 2: that he also made. Do you see why some people
[7:33] Speaker 2: wouldn't be keen on worshipping the guy even if he
[7:35] Speaker 2: were real?
[7:37] Speaker 3: And in fact, another thing you can say is, you
[7:40] Speaker 3: know what you've just done? By claiming I'm a hypocrite,
[7:43] Speaker 3: you've just given evidence for God.
[7:46] Speaker 4: Why?
[7:47] Speaker 3: Because the person is implying that being a hypocrite is
[7:51] Speaker 3: morally wrong.
[7:52] Speaker 2: And of course, moral philosophy always boils down to NO
[7:55] Speaker 2: MORALS WITHOUT GOD! even though some of the most basic
[7:59] Speaker 2: aspects of moral philosophy are still being debated, such as
[8:01] Speaker 2: small things like, you know, the definition of morality itself.
[8:05] Speaker 2: The people who have careers centered on studying moral philosophy
[8:09] Speaker 2: will tell you that the definition of morality is a
[8:11] Speaker 2: matter of debate. But don't you worry. Christian apologists are
[8:14] Speaker 2: all here to say definitively that any use of moral
[8:17] Speaker 2: language ever must necessarily be based in their specific deity.
[8:21] Speaker 3: But if there is no morally right, in other words,
[8:23] Speaker 3: if there is no God, nothing's morally wrong.
[8:26] Speaker 2: Well, If there is an objective morality that is based
[8:29] Speaker 2: in the character of a deity, it's not the God
[8:31] Speaker 2: of the Bible. How do I know this? Because the
[8:34] Speaker 2: God of the Bible behaves in ways that leave me
[8:36] Speaker 2: with many moral objections. I wouldn't have those objections if
[8:40] Speaker 2: that God were the source of my moral intuitions, would I?
[8:43] Speaker 4: When somebody plays Beethoven poorly, who do you blame? Who
[8:49] Speaker 4: do you blame? Yeah, you don't blame Beethoven, right?
[8:54] Speaker 3: So when somebody plays Jesus poorly, who do you blame?
[8:58] Speaker 3: You don't blame Jesus. Look, just because I'm not true
[9:01] Speaker 3: and beautiful doesn't mean Jesus isn't.
[9:03] Speaker 4: True and beautiful.
[9:04] Speaker 2: Let's hypothetically grant this point. Jesus is true and beautiful,
[9:07] Speaker 2: but Frank is just playing him wrong. Sounds kind of
[9:10] Speaker 2: homoerotic if you ask me, but to set that aside,
[9:12] Speaker 2: everything that Jesus said or did was correct and perfect. Great. Now,
[9:17] Speaker 2: how do we learn about that? through the people that
[9:20] Speaker 2: Frank acknowledged are all hypocritical. He probably would say to
[9:23] Speaker 2: read about it in the Bible, but there are a
[9:25] Speaker 2: few problems there. First, Frank is the type of Christian
[9:27] Speaker 2: who believes the Bible to be inerrant.
[9:29] Speaker 3: It's not necessary for salvation that you believe the Bible's inerrant.
[9:34] Speaker 3: I think you'd be disagreeing with Jesus if you thought
[9:37] Speaker 3: it wasn't inerrant, and that's a problem.
[9:39] Speaker 2: But he acknowledges that there are errors in the Bible.
[9:42] Speaker 3: There are errors that we know about. Why? because we
[9:46] Speaker 3: can compare the documents, we can compare the manuscripts and
[9:49] Speaker 3: see where the errors are.
[9:51] Speaker 2: He deals with this discrepancy by saying that it's the
[9:53] Speaker 2: original documents that were inerrant. Errors were able to creep
[9:56] Speaker 2: in during the copying and translation processes, but the originals.
[9:59] Speaker 3: Are By the way, the doctrine of inerrancy doesn't say
[10:02] Speaker 3: all the copies are inerrant. It says only the original
[10:05] Speaker 3: is inerrant. And we don't have the originals. We have
[10:08] Speaker 3: to reconstruct the originals from the copies.
[10:11] Speaker 2: If Frank is correct in his reasoning here, this means
[10:13] Speaker 2: we do not have access to inerrant Bibles, so we
[10:16] Speaker 2: cannot be 100% sure of anything contained within them. Our
[10:20] Speaker 2: Bibles have been filtered through a bunch of hypocrites. Second,
[10:24] Speaker 2: scripture is very much subject to interpretation. That's why there
[10:27] Speaker 2: are thousands of denominations of Christianity, because nobody can agree
[10:31] Speaker 2: on what everything means. Like, in the first half of
[10:34] Speaker 2: this talk, we saw Frank use Romans 1 to explain
[10:37] Speaker 2: why people could think abortion is morally permissible, while ignoring
[10:40] Speaker 2: that if you read Romans 1 in the context of
[10:42] Speaker 2: the rest of the Book of Romans, it becomes rather
[10:44] Speaker 2: clear that it is a rhetorical trap meant to get
[10:46] Speaker 2: the hypocrites nodding along before being told in Romans 2
[10:49] Speaker 2: and 3 that they are just as bad as the
[10:51] Speaker 2: people being condemned in Chapter 1. Later, when it suited
[10:54] Speaker 2: his purposes to add more context to Matthew 7-1, he
[10:57] Speaker 2: pointed out that there were no chapters and verses in
[10:59] Speaker 2: the original text. You're not supposed to pull out individual
[11:01] Speaker 2: statements and treat them as though there is no context.
[11:04] Speaker 2: If Frank had not been hypocritical about this, then he
[11:06] Speaker 2: wouldn't have used Romans 1 in the way that he has.
[11:09] Speaker 2: But so many Christians have the same decontextualized view of
[11:13] Speaker 2: Romans 1 as Frank does. How are non-Christians supposed to
[11:17] Speaker 2: parse this? It clearly means something other than what most
[11:20] Speaker 2: apologists say it means, but if I point that out
[11:22] Speaker 2: to them, then they will refuse to accept it. So really,
[11:25] Speaker 2: it doesn't matter whether you think their hypocrisy is a
[11:28] Speaker 2: moral issue, but from a practical standpoint, it means that
[11:31] Speaker 2: we can never be sure of what Christianity even is
[11:34] Speaker 2: supposed to be. Christians can't even agree on that. Newsflash!
[11:39] Speaker 4: Christianity is not Christians! Christianity is Jesus!
[11:43] Speaker 2: And everybody, including Christians, disagree about what that even means,
[11:47] Speaker 2: which is exactly what we would expect if Christianity were
[11:50] Speaker 2: not actually true. It also contradicts scripture. Jesus prayed in
[11:54] Speaker 2: John that his disciples and everyone that would come to
[11:56] Speaker 2: believe through their word would be perfectly unified and that
[12:00] Speaker 2: this would specifically be so that the world would believe
[12:03] Speaker 2: that Jesus was sent by God. The very existence of
[12:06] Speaker 2: multiple denominations of Christianity demonstrates that this verse cannot be true,
[12:11] Speaker 2: which I guess would mean that it's still possible for
[12:13] Speaker 2: one of the denominations that doesn't assume the inerrancy of
[12:15] Speaker 2: scripture to be right. But at the very least, Frank's
[12:18] Speaker 2: version of Christianity is wrong because of this passage.
[12:22] Speaker 3: And sometimes, by the way, they will look at you
[12:26] Speaker 3: or maybe another Christian and take one instance, say someone
[12:32] Speaker 3: did something evil, say a pastor fell morally.
[12:35] Speaker 4: What do they do? They're all that way. Really? Is
[12:40] Speaker 4: that the way we.
[12:42] Speaker 3: make decisions, that we take anecdotes and we apply them
[12:47] Speaker 3: to the entire group.
[12:49] Speaker 2: Not to keep harping on about this, but that is
[12:51] Speaker 2: absolutely what Frank does with LGBTQ people. But really, it's
[12:54] Speaker 2: not so much that one person did a bad thing,
[12:56] Speaker 2: therefore they are all like that. It's more that one
[12:59] Speaker 2: person did a bad thing. And then the church mobilized
[13:02] Speaker 2: all of its resources to make sure the person who
[13:04] Speaker 2: did the bad thing was protected from any negative consequences
[13:07] Speaker 2: of that bad thing. You'd think the all-powerful God of
[13:10] Speaker 2: the universe would have a decent vetting system in place
[13:12] Speaker 2: for the people who would be representing him here on Earth,
[13:14] Speaker 2: but apparently that's too much for him to accomplish. And
[13:17] Speaker 2: I'm not talking about violating free will here. I'm just
[13:19] Speaker 2: saying he could divinely reveal to anyone who is in
[13:21] Speaker 2: charge of hiring which people are going to turn out
[13:24] Speaker 2: to be the abusers and which will not. But he
[13:27] Speaker 2: doesn't do that, and there are only two conclusions I
[13:29] Speaker 2: can draw from that. Either he's not real, or he
[13:31] Speaker 2: doesn't care.
[13:33] Speaker 4: One thing that we haven't taught, as I mentioned, is logic.
[13:36] Speaker 3: There's a fallacy out there that you need to know
[13:39] Speaker 3: about because it's everywhere, and it's a logical fallacy, yet
[13:43] Speaker 3: it causes many people to think that something is true
[13:48] Speaker 3: when it really isn't. It's called the hasty generalization fallacy.
[13:53] Speaker 2: Not one is where you draw a conclusion from a
[13:55] Speaker 2: sample that is too small or biased to be properly representative. So,
[13:59] Speaker 2: for instance, I don't know why I'm thinking of this
[14:01] Speaker 2: example just now, but if you were to say that
[14:04] Speaker 2: gay men have a life expectancy that is 8 to
[14:05] Speaker 2: 20 years shorter on average based on a single study
[14:08] Speaker 2: that looked at gay men in one city during the
[14:10] Speaker 2: height of the AIDS crisis, and then ignore all subsequent
[14:13] Speaker 2: research with much larger and more representative samples.
[14:17] Speaker 4: I'll give an example from each side of the political aisle.
[14:21] Speaker 3: Where... The governor of Minnesota, Tim Waltz, and the mayor
[14:27] Speaker 3: of Minneapolis, a guy by the name of Fry, were
[14:30] Speaker 3: releasing violent criminals who happened to be illegal aliens.
[14:37] Speaker 4: Into the community.
[14:39] Speaker 2: Just to set the record straight on this one, Frank
[14:41] Speaker 2: is just repeating DHS propaganda. The specific claim is based
[14:44] Speaker 2: on the idea that Minnesota has not been honoring ICE
[14:46] Speaker 2: detainers for immigrants in their jails and prisons. People with
[14:49] Speaker 2: an ICE detainer are not meant to be released when
[14:51] Speaker 2: their sentence is up. They are to remain detained until
[14:54] Speaker 2: ICE decides whether or not they want to detain them.
[14:56] Speaker 2: But not only is that something that is not under
[14:58] Speaker 2: the direct control of either the governor of Minnesota or
[15:00] Speaker 2: the mayor of Minneapolis, it is also patently false. The
[15:04] Speaker 2: Minnesota Department of Corrections commissioner pointed out that, at the time,
[15:07] Speaker 2: only 301 people in either prison or jail had ICE detainers,
[15:11] Speaker 2: as opposed to the 1,360 that was being claimed by
[15:14] Speaker 2: the DHS, and that they have not had a single
[15:17] Speaker 2: instance of an ICE detainer not being honored. So that's
[15:20] Speaker 2: just a flat out lie.
[15:22] Speaker 4: So what did ICE need to do?
[15:24] Speaker 3: ICE needed to go into those communities, track these people down,
[15:28] Speaker 3: and sometimes there were some pretty ugly confrontations weren't there.
[15:32] Speaker 2: Now, I want you to consider this statement in light
[15:34] Speaker 2: of the fact that these supposedly violent criminals were not
[15:37] Speaker 2: actually released into the city. How does it sound knowing that?
[15:41] Speaker 2: ICE went to track people down who didn't exist in
[15:43] Speaker 2: the first place, and there were some pretty nasty confrontations,
[15:46] Speaker 2: which is a pretty sanitized way to say that they
[15:48] Speaker 2: murdered innocent people in cold blood.
[15:51] Speaker 3: When they could have just gone to the jail and
[15:54] Speaker 3: under control, just put them in the police car and
[15:57] Speaker 3: taken them away. But no, the governor and the mayor
[15:59] Speaker 3: didn't want that to happen.
[16:01] Speaker 2: Except that is exactly what was happening. The lie that
[16:04] Speaker 2: they were releasing violent criminals was an attempt at manufacturing
[16:07] Speaker 2: consent for the invasion of an American city by a
[16:09] Speaker 2: quasi-military force under the control of the federal government.
[16:13] Speaker 4: And so what do we do?
[16:14] Speaker 3: We're sitting on our iPhones and we see a little
[16:17] Speaker 3: video that's 15 seconds.
[16:19] Speaker 4: That looks really bad. And we go, ice is evil.
[16:24] Speaker 2: Ice isn't evil because of one single 15 second video,
[16:27] Speaker 2: which again, I will point out he is likely talking
[16:29] Speaker 2: of one of two events, one of which an ice
[16:32] Speaker 2: agent shot a woman in a car who was driving
[16:34] Speaker 2: away from him and then called her a bitch. The other,
[16:38] Speaker 2: an ICE agent shot a man in the back while
[16:39] Speaker 2: he was trying to help someone else to their feet.
[16:41] Speaker 2: Why is Frank repeating exaggerations and lies that are meant
[16:44] Speaker 2: to make people on the left look bad while the
[16:45] Speaker 2: fascist organization that murders people on the street gets sanitized?
[16:50] Speaker 4: We need to defund ICE. Abolish ICE.
[16:53] Speaker 2: Yes, abolish ICE. It's only 23 years old, it didn't
[16:56] Speaker 2: exist for 99% of the history of the United States,
[16:59] Speaker 2: and they don't serve any critical function. They do more
[17:01] Speaker 2: harm than good, so ditch them.
[17:04] Speaker 3: What people are doing is they're taking an anecdote, and
[17:08] Speaker 3: one they don't even know the proper context of, and
[17:10] Speaker 3: they take that one piece of data and.
[17:13] Speaker 4: They apply it to the entire group. When I was
[17:16] Speaker 4: growing up, we used to call this prejudice.
[17:20] Speaker 3: You've got one piece of data and you're applying it
[17:23] Speaker 3: to the entire group.
[17:24] Speaker 4: That's called a hasty generalization.
[17:27] Speaker 2: If it were just that one observation that you were
[17:30] Speaker 2: applying to the whole group, then yes, that would be.
[17:33] Speaker 2: But it is not one observation. Amnesty International published a
[17:37] Speaker 2: 160-page report last month documenting just some of the human
[17:40] Speaker 2: rights violations being perpetrated by ICE. Forgive the lengthy quote here,
[17:43] Speaker 2: but to read from the executive summary of the report, quote,
[17:46] Speaker 2: Amnesty International documented a wide range of human rights violations
[17:49] Speaker 2: committed by ICE, Border Patrol, and other federal agents during
[17:52] Speaker 2: the immigration enforcement operations in Chicago, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New Orleans,
[17:56] Speaker 2: and surrounding areas, and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. including
[18:00] Speaker 2: racial discrimination, arbitrary and discriminatory arrests and detentions, harassment, intimidation,
[18:05] Speaker 2: unlawful use of force, including lethal force, which in some
[18:08] Speaker 2: cases may amount to extrajudicial executions, repression of peaceful protests,
[18:12] Speaker 2: unlawful use of less lethal force, unlawful surveillance, cruel, inhumane,
[18:16] Speaker 2: and degrading detention conditions that may violate the prohibition on torture,
[18:19] Speaker 2: and unlawful incommunicado detention and possible acts of enforced disappearance.
[18:24] Speaker 2: These violations were committed against migrant communities, other racialized people
[18:27] Speaker 2: perceived to be part of migrant communities, and those that
[18:29] Speaker 2: defended them. The recurrence of these violations across the four
[18:32] Speaker 2: locations examined in this report demonstrates that they were neither
[18:34] Speaker 2: isolated nor exceptional, but characteristic of the manner in which
[18:37] Speaker 2: the operations were conducted and reflective of broader national patterns.
[18:41] Speaker 2: Now maybe I'm wrong here, but it seems to me
[18:44] Speaker 2: that this is a hell of a lot more than
[18:45] Speaker 2: one 15-second video clip. So I shall say it again,
[18:49] Speaker 2: abolish the fuck out of ICE. And not in the
[18:52] Speaker 2: metaphorical way where defund the police actually means to use
[18:55] Speaker 2: some of the money that they would otherwise buy military
[18:57] Speaker 2: equipment with to fund social services that serve to preemptively
[19:00] Speaker 2: fight crime. More in the literal, it is a blatantly racist,
[19:04] Speaker 2: corrupt and cruel organization that has no place in civilized
[19:06] Speaker 2: society kind of way.
[19:08] Speaker 3: In order for you to know that ICE was universally evil,
[19:12] Speaker 3: you would have to have really good survey data or
[19:14] Speaker 3: complete data, and you don't have it with an anecdote.
[19:19] Speaker 2: No, but we do have it with the Amnesty International report.
[19:22] Speaker 2: And most of this isn't exactly breaking news. It is
[19:25] Speaker 2: a new report, so I could forgive Frank for not
[19:27] Speaker 2: knowing about it, but everything in it has already received
[19:30] Speaker 2: widespread news coverage, if not directly, then at least similar incidents.
[19:34] Speaker 2: Frank is purposefully ignoring all of the news and reporting
[19:38] Speaker 2: surrounding these events in order to make it look like
[19:40] Speaker 2: all we have is this one out of context cell
[19:42] Speaker 2: phone video.
[19:43] Speaker 4: Are you guys with me on this? Let me give
[19:46] Speaker 4: you something from the opposite side of the aisle.
[19:48] Speaker 2: You think he's going to be fair? here? Taking bets now.
[19:51] Speaker 3: I don't know if you've noticed, but there's been a
[19:55] Speaker 3: lot of trans related shootings.
[19:57] Speaker 2: By a lot of, he means a grand total of
[19:59] Speaker 2: five between 2013 and 2025. How many total mass shootings
[20:03] Speaker 2: were there in that time?
[20:04] Speaker 3: 5,748.
[20:04] Speaker 2: 1,100th of 1% of mass shooters have been trans. By comparison,
[20:07] Speaker 2: it is estimated that about 0.95% of the US population
[20:09] Speaker 2: is trans. meaning that if trans people were proportionally represented
[20:18] Speaker 2: in the mass shooter population, there should have been 55
[20:21] Speaker 2: of them rather than five. So right out of the gate,
[20:24] Speaker 2: we see him engaging in the very fallacy that he
[20:26] Speaker 2: is attempting to point out. Undoubtedly, he is going to
[20:29] Speaker 2: follow this up by saying that trans people are not
[20:31] Speaker 2: overrepresented in the data here, but his framing is worded
[20:34] Speaker 2: specifically to lead you to that incorrect conclusion anyway. Otherwise,
[20:38] Speaker 2: he wouldn't have said that there have been a lot
[20:40] Speaker 2: of them.
[20:41] Speaker 3: Now, would it be a legitimate argument way to reason
[20:45] Speaker 3: if we were to take all those trans-related shootings and
[20:48] Speaker 3: say all trans people are violent?
[20:50] Speaker 2: No, because we have the data and the data says
[20:53] Speaker 2: that trans people are actually significantly less violent than cis people.
[20:57] Speaker 4: No, that's not the way you reason.
[21:00] Speaker 3: You would need data, big survey data that has 95%
[21:05] Speaker 3: confidence intervals on it, which is a statistical way of
[21:10] Speaker 3: looking at uh, social science data, and you'd have to
[21:14] Speaker 3: draw conclusions that way instead of taking anecdotes.
[21:19] Speaker 4: Right.
[21:19] Speaker 2: And when we do that, we find that trans people
[21:21] Speaker 2: are much more likely to be the victims of violence
[21:24] Speaker 2: than the perpetrators of violence.
[21:26] Speaker 3: Although when you do look at that kind of data,
[21:28] Speaker 3: it turns out that people in the trans community are
[21:31] Speaker 3: more violent than other people, but it's still a small,
[21:36] Speaker 3: tiny minority of people who identify as trans.
[21:38] Speaker 4: You guys tracking with me right now?
[21:40] Speaker 2: And there it is. When it comes to ICE, all
[21:43] Speaker 2: we have is this one little 15-second video. The guy
[21:46] Speaker 2: who killed Rene Good was just, he was just a
[21:48] Speaker 2: scared little guy. He was traumatized by a previous run-in
[21:51] Speaker 2: with a vehicle. You can't draw conclusions about ICE as
[21:53] Speaker 2: a whole from that. Meanwhile, they have a very thoroughly
[21:56] Speaker 2: documented ongoing problem with human rights violations. But trans people? Sure,
[22:01] Speaker 2: you can't say they're all violent because of the miniscule
[22:04] Speaker 2: number of trans mass shooters. But come on, we all
[22:07] Speaker 2: know they're more violent than the people who want them eradicated, right?
[22:10] Speaker 2: Rhetoric like this is what encourages violence against trans people.
[22:13] Speaker 2: So not only is Frank wrong here, he is dangerously
[22:17] Speaker 2: wrong in a way that can and does actively cause
[22:20] Speaker 2: real harm to real people.
[22:23] Speaker 3: Don't let hasty generalizations cause you to slander people.
[22:29] Speaker 2: To paraphrase a bit, don't do what Frank literally just did.
[22:32] Speaker 3: All right, how about this one? This is the biggest one.
[22:36] Speaker 3: Christians are oppressors.
[22:39] Speaker 2: A bunch of the architects of Project 2025 are in
[22:41] Speaker 2: positions of power in the U.S. government right now. It
[22:44] Speaker 2: is Christians actively working against LGBTQ and women's rights, not
[22:48] Speaker 2: to mention all of the Christian nationalist imagery and language
[22:51] Speaker 2: used by government officials regarding ICE trying to purge the
[22:54] Speaker 2: country of as many non-white people as possible. So, yeah,
[22:57] Speaker 2: Christians are oppressors.
[23:00] Speaker 3: I mentioned we're coming up on the year anniversary of this.
[23:04] Speaker 3: In fact, we're going back to the University of or
[23:08] Speaker 3: Utah Valley University where Charlie was murdered September 10th.
[23:15] Speaker 2: So, Frank, do you remember that whole hasty generalization thing
[23:19] Speaker 2: you were literally just talking about? You can't use one
[23:22] Speaker 2: single instance of a Christian being murdered as proof that
[23:25] Speaker 2: the people in power who are actively oppressing people are
[23:28] Speaker 2: not actually oppressors. That would be a hasty generalization. Also,
[23:33] Speaker 2: this is what Charlie thought of gun violence.
[23:35] Speaker 3: I think it's worth to have a cost of unfortunately
[23:38] Speaker 3: some gun deaths every single year, so that we can
[23:41] Speaker 3: have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.
[23:45] Speaker 2: Just, you know, for the record. Also for the record,
[23:48] Speaker 2: right-wing extremist violence is both more frequent and more deadly
[23:51] Speaker 2: than left-wing violence, and those on the right are way
[23:54] Speaker 2: more likely to invoke Christianity as their justification.
[23:57] Speaker 3: Leviticus 19 is a section of the Old Testament law
[24:02] Speaker 3: that talks about this at length, beginning in verse 15.
[24:07] Speaker 3: Do not pervert justice. Do not show partiality to the
[24:11] Speaker 3: poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. Secondly,
[24:18] Speaker 3: do not go about spreading slander among your people.
[24:23] Speaker 2: In other words, don't do what Charlie Kirk did and
[24:26] Speaker 2: what Frank is currently doing.
[24:28] Speaker 3: Then he says, do not hate a fellow Israelite in
[24:31] Speaker 3: your heart.
[24:32] Speaker 4: Now check this next part out.
[24:34] Speaker 3: Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in
[24:38] Speaker 3: their guilt. What?
[24:42] Speaker 4: Do you see what he's saying here?
[24:44] Speaker 3: God is saying that if you know your neighbor's doing
[24:46] Speaker 3: evil and you don't rebuke him, you're guilty too.
[24:49] Speaker 2: And that's why I'm making this video, to rebuke Frank
[24:52] Speaker 2: for the evil he is doing. But also, this is
[24:55] Speaker 2: a good example of a Christian double standard. I have
[24:57] Speaker 2: often made reference to the passage that tells you not
[24:58] Speaker 2: to let your cattle breed with another kind of cattle,
[25:00] Speaker 2: not to sow different kinds of seeds in the same field,
[25:02] Speaker 2: and not to wear mixed fabric as one of the
[25:04] Speaker 2: ridiculous rules that can be found in the Bible. Usually
[25:07] Speaker 2: the response I get for that is something along the
[25:09] Speaker 2: lines of this section of Leviticus being the old covenant
[25:12] Speaker 2: that was specific to the ancient Hebrews of that time
[25:14] Speaker 2: and location. It was superseded by the new covenant, which
[25:17] Speaker 2: is applicable today. Well, that passage is the very next
[25:21] Speaker 2: section of Leviticus 19. So if Frank thinks these are
[25:24] Speaker 2: commands for us today, then I have to ask, is
[25:27] Speaker 2: his shirt a cotton poly blend? If so, how does
[25:30] Speaker 2: he justify taking the first half of this chapter as
[25:32] Speaker 2: a command for today, but not the latter half?
[25:35] Speaker 3: Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone.
[25:39] Speaker 3: among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself.
[25:42] Speaker 4: I am the Lord. Keep my decrees.
[25:44] Speaker 2: Oh, come on, Frank. Read the rest of verse 19.
[25:46] Speaker 4: It's right there.
[25:48] Speaker 2: He literally stopped partway through a verse in order to
[25:50] Speaker 2: not bring attention to the ridiculous rules that are there,
[25:53] Speaker 2: one of which he was likely breaking when he gave
[25:55] Speaker 2: this talk.
[25:57] Speaker 3: There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free,
[26:00] Speaker 3: nor nor they're male nor female.
[26:02] Speaker 4: For you're all one in Christ Jesus.
[26:04] Speaker 2: Well, was definitely not expecting to see that verse come
[26:07] Speaker 2: up in this talk, especially given what Frank said earlier.
[26:10] Speaker 3: Forget Genesis, where God said he made them male and female. No, no, no, no, no.
[26:15] Speaker 4: Yeah.
[26:16] Speaker 2: Forget Genesis, where God said he made them male and female.
[26:18] Speaker 2: There is no male and female, for you're all one
[26:21] Speaker 2: in Christ Jesus. He spends the rest of the sermon
[26:23] Speaker 2: giving a revisionist history of the United States, trying to
[26:25] Speaker 2: make it look like it was founded as a Christian nation,
[26:28] Speaker 2: despite the fact that the Senate unanimously voted to ratify
[26:30] Speaker 2: the Treaty of Tripoli, which explicitly states that the government
[26:33] Speaker 2: of the United States of America is not in any
[26:35] Speaker 2: sense founded on the Christian religion. If the government of
[26:37] Speaker 2: a country explicitly states that they were not founded on Christianity,
[26:41] Speaker 2: then can you really say that it was founded on Christianity? Anyway,
[26:44] Speaker 2: to Frank's credit, he does point out that the American
[26:46] Speaker 2: Civil War was primarily about slavery, Though he does so
[26:50] Speaker 2: as a setup to get to the Martin Luther King
[26:52] Speaker 2: judge not by the color of their skin, but by
[26:53] Speaker 2: the content of their character talking point, where people like
[26:56] Speaker 2: Frank like to pretend that racism was solved as soon
[26:58] Speaker 2: as King made that speech, and any attempt to equalize
[27:01] Speaker 2: the playing field of people of color afterwards is actually
[27:03] Speaker 2: racist against white people. He also called the Democratic Socialist
[27:06] Speaker 2: candidates running right now communist, showing his desire to instill
[27:09] Speaker 2: fear based on buzzwords rather than actually, you know, understanding
[27:13] Speaker 2: their platform. And for what it's worth, Martin Luther King Jr.,
[27:16] Speaker 2: was a democratic socialist, so he likely would have supported
[27:18] Speaker 2: the DSA candidates. So yeah, that's where I'll leave it
[27:21] Speaker 2: for today. Today's comment of the day comes to us
[27:24] Speaker 2: from Mongoose King of the Wastelands, who says, Not a
[27:26] Speaker 2: bone in his body would be broken. There are a
[27:28] Speaker 2: lot of bones in the hands and feet. Which, you
[27:31] Speaker 2: know what?
[27:32] Speaker 4: True.
[27:32] Speaker 2: I hadn't put that together. Seems like putting nails through
[27:35] Speaker 2: someone's wrist and feet would do at least some bone break.
[27:38] Speaker 2: I guess the easy way out here is to acknowledge
[27:39] Speaker 2: that crucifixion didn't always involve nailing the victim to the cross.
[27:42] Speaker 2: They were often just tied up instead. And the gospel
[27:45] Speaker 2: doesn't actually say they used nails for Jesus, just that
[27:47] Speaker 2: he was crucified. But then you lose the whole he
[27:50] Speaker 2: was pierced for our transgressions prophecy. Thanks for watching. I'll
[27:53] Speaker 2: be back next Friday with more, but if you need
[27:54] Speaker 2: to get your rhino fixin' before then, I livestream with
[27:56] Speaker 2: Sirius every Wednesday at 8.30 Eastern on my other channel,
[27:58] Speaker 2: The Watering Hole. Thanks to Piper for being my editor,
[28:00] Speaker 2: and special thanks as always to my patrons, who are
[28:02] Speaker 2: the Human Rights Group, documenting the myriad of abuses that
[28:04] Speaker 2: are my channel. If you'd like to just be a
[28:07] Speaker 2: single 15-second video clip to Frank... then you can join
[28:10] Speaker 2: us on Patreon for as little as a dollar per
[28:11] Speaker 2: week over at patreon.com slash vicerano, or by supporting the
[28:14] Speaker 2: channel in one of the other methods that can be
[28:15] Speaker 2: found at links.vicerano.com, which is also where you'll find links
[28:18] Speaker 2: to my other projects. If for whatever reason you want
[28:19] Speaker 2: to send me stuff, my field box address is in
[28:21] Speaker 2: the description. See you next time!
[28:54] Speaker 1: Blah, blah, blah.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.