Haters Beware! The New Hate Speech Requires a Special Decoder

October 07, 2016

Writer

Do you treat people the same way, based on the content of their character? Well, stop it, because you're a hater.

"That indicates that you're not respecting their cultural differences, if you treat everyone the same. I mean, what an amazing journey from Martin Luther King and, you know, take people on the content of their character," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Friday on The Glenn Beck Program.

But if you think you can comment about cultural differences, think again. That's hate speech, too.

What's the solution? Get your special decoder or sit down and shut up. Or, here's a whacky thought: Treat everyone as uniquely wonderful and respectfully exercise your First Amendment rights.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these First Amendment-protected questions:

• What is hate speech?

• If a hater hates in the woods is it still hate?

• Why is it hateful to treat people the same?

• If your ancestors were white abolitionists, are you still white privileged?

• What country are you from? (Oops, that's hate speech, sorry)

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

PAT: I treat all people the same.

STU: That's called -- that's basically hate speech. You're not supposed to say that.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Because that indicates -- we tried to figure some of these out. I don't even know. That indicates that you're not respecting their cultural differences, if you treat everyone the same. I mean, what a -- what an amazing journey from Martin Luther King and, you know, take people on the content of their character and not --

PAT: Where are you originally from? You can't ask somebody that. If they have a pronounced accent, you can't say, "Oh, hey, it's great to have you. Where you originally from?" No, that's offensive. Because you're making them feel like I guess they're other than American. Well, they are, right? They might be citizens now. But that's not where they originated. Is that -- how can that be wrong? I wouldn't care if someone said, "Where's your ancestry?" I would be okay telling them it's mostly Ireland. I'd be all right with that. That doesn't bother me.

STU: If someone asks you -- came up to you today and said, Pat, "Where are you originally from," you would say --

PAT: Montana.

STU: Montana. Right? There's an answer to that question. If it's a foreign country, fine. Or I would say New York. Jeffy would say hell.

PAT: Yeah, or south hell --

STU: Or Michigan. I know it was Michigan. Was it hell?

PAT: South hell?

STU: Southern hell.

PAT: Right.

JEFFY: That's fine.

STU: The point being, that's an honest question. It doesn't indicate any hatred toward --

PAT: Here's another thing you're not supposed to say: The same thing happens to me too.

JEFFY: Oh, boy.

STU: No. All of our experiences are different, Pat.

PAT: They're totally unique. That's never happened to anyone. All of my experiences are uniquely mine. I guess that's the issue there.

I know exactly how you feel.

STU: No, you don't. My experiences are my own!

PAT: Some of my best friends are white, black, Hispanic. None of those are acceptable.

STU: See that indicates that you're trying to excuse your own racial intolerance by just claiming you have non-descript friends of another race.

JEFFY: I don't see color. I'm colorblind.

STU: I mean, think about that. That is on the list. I'm colorblind. I don't see color.

PAT: Isn't that what Martin Luther King said?

STU: The plea of the biggest civil rights hero in the last 100 years is the thing you're not allowed to say at James Madison University.

PAT: You are so articulate.

STU: Now, that is obviously bad --

PAT: That is -- wow, you might as well have said the N-word.

(laughter)

STU: Now, again, that is not okay to say, unless you're Joe Biden, who said it about Barack Obama. Said, oh, he's the first articulate black candidate ever. It's a storybook, man. Clean.

PAT: Clean.

STU: Like he was shocked the man was clean.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: You're shocked a black man took a shower and the guy is vice president of the United States. But yet, freshmen at James Madison can't say it.

PAT: Here's one we tried to figure out the other day on Pat & Stu, saying to somebody who is in the LGBTQ community, what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom, that's your business.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Why is -- what? How?

STU: How is that hateful?

PAT: I don't know. Or offensive in any way.

STU: And I guess the -- to try formulate the outrage -- because this is the issue here. None of us are offended by this, and the audience isn't offended by these things because we don't wake up every day searching for life meaning in outrage. We don't sit here and say, "Oh, gosh, please, let me today discover something that will make me so upset, I can try to ruin somebody's business over it." That's not how we run our lives.

JEFFY: Right. But by saying that, you're saying that you disagree with what they do in their bedroom.

PAT: How? When you're saying, I don't care what you do.

JEFFY: Exactly.

STU: Exactly. You should care, and you should honor it and respect it.

PAT: Yes. Is that what I'm supposed -- I love what you do.

Hey, dude, I love what you do in your bedroom with your partner. I love that. That is awesome.

STU: And, of course, any --

PAT: May I participate?

STU: Yeah.

PAT: May I --

JEFFY: I don't think you have to go that far.

PAT: May I join the two of you? Because that seems like a great -- a really wonderful experience. Is that what it has to be now?

JEFFY: You have such a pretty face.

PAT: Oh, you can't say that either, Jeffy, as you know. Because you know, you can't say that --

STU: If you were gay and someone came up to you and said, "Hey, by the way, I really love what you guys are doing in your bedroom," wouldn't you be like -- that would be the weirdest thing in the world. Get out of my space, man.

(laughter)

JEFFY: Make you put the camera away. How do you know what I'm doing in my bedroom?

STU: Right. How do you know?

PAT: Why are you even talking about that?

STU: Why would you bring that up? That's so weird.

PAT: Now, some of these you can kind of figure out. You're not supposed to say to anybody, "I never owned slaves." Well, that's because it doesn't matter if you owned slaves or not. The problem universal, anyway, right? Isn't that what they're kind of saying with that one?

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: That that's not the issue whether you specifically owned slaves or whether your ancestors did. The problem exists whether you were part of it or not. And by your whiteness, you are part of it because of white privilege.

And I think you're denying white privilege if you say something like this. Is that right?

JEFFY: Okay. Okay.

STU: I guess. I guess.

JEFFY: Okay.

STU: I do not have my decoder --

PAT: Holy cow. It's unbelievable.

Featured Image: No Hate Speech movement logo

The DARK truth behind the Macrons' absurd lawsuit

WPA Pool / Pool | Getty Images

While the media obsesses over elite scandals, Glenn is having a field day exposing the Macron lawsuit farce—and the twisted truth it tries to bury.

The era of unchecked narratives is coming to an end. We're reclaiming reality, one scandal at a time.

On his show, Glenn couldn't hide his glee over French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte suing Candace Owens for claiming she's really a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux. Glenn called Brigitte the "Jeffrey Epstein of France" for grooming a 15-year-old Emmanuel when she was his 40-year-old teacher, and speculated that she is pressuring her husband to silence the rumors. Glenn also mocked the blatant overkill, which included childhood photos, birth announcements, and a desperate proclamation that Brigitte is "a woman."

But it goes deeper: The liberal elites have long proclaimed that transitioning is "wonderful," so why sue over the insinuation? It's hypocrisy—elites demanding silence on grooming while forcing conformity. This isn't about truth; it's control, proving no one's above scrutiny.

Want to see the absurd lawsuit firsthand? Download the Macron v. Owens lawsuit PDF here and see the evidence for yourself.

Download the PDF here.

BREAKING: Top-secret 2020 House Intel report on Brennan's ICA revealed

Brooks Kraft / Contributor | Getty Images

The following oversight report from the House Intelligence Committee examines the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) rushed out by the Obama administration before leaving office in January 2017.

This report has never been released to the public. Until now.

The House Intelligence Committee’s review began in 2017, shortly after the ICA’s release, and continued through 2020, paralleling a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election, which concluded in fall 2020.

Before its declassification by President Trump and public release by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, this report was among the U.S. government’s most highly classified documents. Its sensitive level of compartmentation prohibited storage on top-secret computer networks. Only five physical copies existed, all secured in safes under strict protocols. This extreme classification suggests the Obama administration sought to prevent the public from learning the extent of its alleged deception.

Download the PDF here.

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn's Show Prep