https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/04/politics/transgender-firearms-justice-department-second-amendment

They wanna make gender dysphoria a condition which precludes individuals from having the right to bear arms. I always joked about how a "liberal shooter" would get the republicans to finally be on board with gun control but boy was I proven right.

I am a long time watcher, but first time comment participant of all of the liberal “independent” YouTube and TikTok media landscape (Vanguard, Majority Report, Pakman, Brian Tyler Cohen, Suzanne Lambert, Bitchuation Room, Kyle Kulinski, Breaking Points, Adam Mockler, Destiny, Pondering Politics, Keith Edwards, Rashad Crenshaw, Luke Beasley, Hasan Piker, Hutch, Meidas Touch, I’ve Had It and -previously-TYT amongst others).

I know that all that anyone was talking about over the long weekend was this Wired article that Taylor Lorenz wrote about Chorus. I can honestly see both sides of it.

Yes there maybe should have been more transparency about how financial resources were allocated(even though BTC was talking about Chorus involvement for months-I remember listening to a podcast he did about it right after the inauguration) and maybe those involved had poor answers and overly defensive responses, but at the same time it seems that on the other side of the aisle this purity test “gotcha-ism” bullshit has really missed the mark. Money and resources from organizations (or even billionaires) are not inherently evil. It is what you do with it that matters.

What are we doing here? What are we ultimately trying to accomplish? I listened to Francesca’s interview with Lorenz and at the end of it Fiorentini said something along the lines of “is any of this (in-fighting) ultimately productive?” Exactly.

Nuance is a thing. The domestic issues plaguing our country (as well as mitigating human suffering abroad) can only be accomplished by getting MAGA out of politics. And that is by winning elections and changing the narrative.

Finding a basic 3-4 main talking points that mostly everyone on this side agrees on (for example-Ukraine, Epstein File Release, Reproductive Right Freedoms & fighting the facist immigration policies). And then collectively hitting that over and over.

Understanding that just because someone doesn’t agree with you about 20% of what you believe doesn’t negate the other 80%.

I posted this video ironically because it shows how quickly things can become divisive year after year. Pakman and Lorenz had an admittedly milquetoast, but nonetheless interesting conversation about social media. Three years ago Breaking Points criticized Lorenz over being a “Hall Monitor Karen” over a Covid tweet she posted.

The point I am trying to make here is yes a corny kumbaya argument of bringing these folks together to ultimately bring about change. Cenk going on Krystal and Kyle is an example.

BTC should be asked and accept an offer to go on the Vanguard.

Hasan and Pakman (moderated by Emma Viegland for example) could have an interesting conversation about agreeable subjects and professionally debate about the other topics.

This siloed system is what we need to embrace for MAGA and the Republicans. To get them to eat themselves and

Not for ourselves. Centrist, Socialist, Democrat, Leftist, Liberal are legitimate descriptions of how we feel, but I think ultimately right now being inoculated within that 100% specific line of thinking is causing really positive momentum (Graham Platner and Zohran coming onto the scene, special election wins, A shockingly Bipartisan Epstein File release push) to go by the wayside.

I will probably be downvoted for this , but nonetheless that is how I feel. I am cross posting this across all of these YouTubers reddit channels (I personally don’t engage on X, Blue-Sky or Threads). Will any of these folks read this essay? Probably not. But the beauty of social media is the ability to express thoughts and this is what I am doing. Any feedback would be great.

In a 2017 interview Wired stated that while they thoroughly fact check each of their print articles, that they don't fact check their online articles (even legally sensitive ones):

But original content posted online generally isn’t fact-checked. “We don’t have the staff for that, and we operate usually very quickly on the web—you know, stories that are pitched in a meeting this morning will be live by this afternoon or tomorrow morning, which is very different than working on the print magazine,” Pearlstein says. The only exceptions are online stories that might be legally sensitive, which are given “not a fact-check per se, but a review for accuracy.”

For an example of this in action this year:

• May 7 Wired posts an article generated by AI that makes up 5 named people. Wired states they interviewed these imaginary people:

“We’d log on almost every day after school,” Nguyen tells WIRED.

One couple, who met in a Discord server dedicated to indie game development, tells WIRED ...

The story was about virtual weddings, and a simple Google search would have shown these people didn't actually exist:

JESSICA HU, 34, an ordained officiant based in Chicago, has made a name for herself as a “digital celebrant,” specializing in ceremonies across Twitch, Discord, and VRChat. Since launching her virtual wedding services in 2020, she has officiated over 40 ceremonies in online spaces.

Various other sites wrote their stories based off Wired's interviews:

• May 8: Mashable writes on article on the Wired story

• May 13: Fast Company writes on article on the Wired story

• May 22 Wired takes down the story after being unable to pay the author because they used a fake name. Instead of explaining that none of the story was verified, they just left a disclaimer that the story did not meet their editorial standards. Other sites continued to run their stories based off Wired's article

• August 21 Press Gazette writes a story outing the AI-generated article

• August 21 Wired finally posts a correction and admits "This story did not go through a proper fact-check process or get a top edit from a more senior editor."

Don't expect a correction from Wired anytime soon. Almost all their stories that they take down just get a generic disclaimer that doesn't explain anything and that are difficult to search for via Google.

People were cited voicing concerns of the contract. That's fair. But, there is no one who has said they've been reprimanded for not following it.

The I Had It Pod, a couple of white women (who I adore), are featured on the homepage of Chorus. They are platformed and advertised on chorus.

These ladies have lambasted the DNC, often talked about Palestine and the genocide supporting Democrats, and call out Democrats for not supporting Mamdani.

They had Mamdani in their podcast.

They had Hasan, the biggest leftist influencer in the entire world, who famously hates liberals, on. They showered him with praise.

In what world is platforming and praising Hasan propaganda for the DNC? And there are more.

One influencer has said she does whatever she wants. She interviews whoever she wants, she's told people about her membership without letting chorus know, she publicly blasts the Democrat party. She wants Cory Booker fired. She calls out their support for Israel.

There is another influencer who calls out Zionist Democrats, who is also featured on the Chorus homepage.

None of this is "pushing the party line." Even if you have issues with David's coverage of the conflict and overall support for the DNC, he's been consistent about his tone for years. A program 6 weeks old has not effected his content whatsoever.

I just feel like this is so painfully obvious.

Disclaimer: this is not to debate the Palestinian conflict. Simply the accusations of calling Chorus a Zionist program, when the content creators are adamantly against Netanyahu.

There used to be a big crossover between these audiences, although it has seemingly lessened with time. With this Wired story, things have now reached a fever pitch and the rift between these fan bases is wider than ever. I've watched both shows on and off for years, and I'm not quite sure what to make of this Wired story.

The crew over at Majority Report have done a couple of segments on the story and backlash now, and they seem to think that this is super shady dark money corruption essentially. Here in Pakman's community people seem to think it's a nothing burger. Why this disconnect between these communities?

Do you think this is more of an issue of Pakman's audience being biased in favor of David so they are less willing to criticize him, or is the Majority Report crew misinterpreting some things and blowing things out of proportion a bit?

It seems like one major contention from David is that Chorus has zero editorial control over his content, but the crew at Majority Report seem to think this is a moot point and that Chorus is choosing specifically to fund creators with a certain viewpoint that is generally more mainstream liberal as opposed to Bernie/AOC-style progressive/democratic socialist. But, at the same time, some of these creators have expressed pro-Palestinian sentiment for example.

So I guess the big question is: is it okay to take money from Chorus? Pakman's community seems to think it's fine and unproblematic, while the MR crew and audience thinks it's absolutely unacceptable and antithetical to being "independent media".

Everyone seemed to have been on the "Trump is dead" conspiracy theory, but meanwhile Trump made a return to a different version of the Daffy Duck voice that David touched upon nearly a year ago. His voice is in that direction, but much different and way breathier and frailer and the more recent pics of him show him increasingly resembling Reverend Henry Kane, the villain from Poltergeist.

I have discussed this elsewhere with people noting it, but I'm kind of surprised it didn't gather more traction to have a president's voice and method of speaking radically change.

It's turned into a not-so-slow moving train wreck of a cover up and now it's not just Trump but Republican donors. It's their whole damn party about to crash and burn, so how far will they go to cover it up? He's desperate and how no respect for the law, would he go as far as have people killed over it? It's pretty obvious he had Epstein killed so would he do the same and go after the victims?

And what batshit crazy stuff will he do for a distraction?

The August report is the first since Trump fired a top Labor Department official over accusations of releasing inaccurate data

I think taking more of a focus on negative/divisive actions (and specific actors), rather than broad brush painting like this is the better path.

Namely I'd say labelling groups of people like this isn't particularly effective in terms of coalition building, by virtue of this framing itself being a divisive one, which is something that can be used against what the stated goal is (that being coalition building).

As one example: purity testing, most people can agree it's a bad thing, and we can discuss the idea of when basic scrutiny becomes over the top purity testing, I think that's fine. But unless you are using a specific person and their words as an example of purity testing, using binary terminology that puts all the negative characteristics on your opponent isn't particularly useful (outside of the gratification that comes with insulting someone you don't like).

Discuss!

Absolutely insane story breaking about a risky SEALs mission resulting in civilian casualties under Trump.

Because I f#^*+% called it!

https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/s/dsipGUjha4

Next they will lock up the democrats on that list. Im not opposed to it. All diddlers should be sacrificed in a volcano according to the old ways. Maybe the gods will slow climate change cause this admin isnt doing a damn thing about it.

I do hate that this is going to probably break the very little leverage we have and give republicans clear lanes to destroy this country more and take away our freedoms in this facist cultish hell we are trapped in.

If we ever get back in power in 2026/28. REVENGE is the word for the following years after. No reaching across the isle. No trying to be friends. Total. Democrat. Rule. Its the only way we can do to fix this mess(legally ofcourse).

As always, I pray you guys make it. Know your rights, the 2nd amendment is still here use it. Try to not get deported to Uganda. F%^# republicans all day everyday.

Long-time viewer here. Did anyone else find David's bit about not knowing how to pronounce "AIPAC" incredibly disingenuous? For a political commentator of his caliber to claim unfamiliarity with a major lobbying group's name felt like a strange attempt to play dumb. It was a frustrating moment that unfortunately made the following analysis feel less authentic to me. Am I the only one that feels insulted?

David's first language is Spanish. AIPAC read phonetically in Spanish is "ipac". As a native Spanish speaker, I'm consistently reading things in Spanish in my head before saying it correctly with the English pronunciation. Obviously David knows the correct way to pronounce it (and he shouldn't have stated otherwise), but I can see how t would get mixed up in his head.

I keep seeing people in this community say that Chorus has no editorial control (and David has said this as well) but this seems to be contradicted by a few paragraphs in the Wired article:

"Creators in the program are not allowed to use any funds or resources that they receive as part of the program to make content that supports or opposes any political candidate or campaign without express authorization from Chorus in advance and in writing, per the contract."

"The creators who joined the incubator are expected to attend regular advocacy trainings and daily messaging check-ins. Those messaging check-ins are led by Cohen on “rapid response days.” The creators also have to attend at least two Chorus “newsroom” events per month, which are events Chorus plans, often with lawmakers."

"In the group chat formed to discuss contract negotiations, some creators discussed a clause prohibiting the disparagement of other creators. Not being able to criticize anyone else affiliated with Chorus felt restrictive to some, according to text messages posted to the chat."

That sounds to me like there was some level of editorial control. Am I missing something here?

Also the contract stipulating that content creators can't disclose that they're receiving money from Chorus seems like a red flag, no? These content creators being required to book interviews with politicians through Chorus also seems weird. This Chorus deal just seems sketchy and poorly executed, even if you agree there needs to be some sort of infrastructure to boost independent left-leaning media.

Are these concerns something we should just ignore in the name of being pragmatic and building independent left-leaning media, or are these concerns too fundamental and important to stomach? What are your thoughts?