Luke Rudkowski & Chris Karr: Timcast IRL Has Been BANNED From TikTok Permanently


Please Login to view this content. Not a member? Join Today!
*For corrections please email corrections@timcast.com*
Luke Rudkowski & Chris Karr: Timcast IRL Has Been BANNED From TikTok Permanently

225 responses to “Luke Rudkowski & Chris Karr: Timcast IRL Has Been BANNED From TikTok Permanently”

  1. Paulymer says:

    Censored and Uncensored. Those words exist for a reason. If you look at content and determine it to be allowable to post then it is uncensored. If you block it or hide it behind a NSFW screen then it is censored. It’s a really simple argument. Ian is just an idiot.

  2. Viper_3_1_actual says:

    It’s called a keystone moment guys, I hope that helps.

  3. HumanLivesMatter says:

    Personally, I call illegal speech (hate-speech) principles undermining the 30articles of the UDHR, calling to kill a person (several Islamists did so on youtube to David Wood or Apostate prophet, literally saying that in their opinion their head should be sawn off – but the videos are still up), invoke mechanism to shut down and oppress persons( calling to harass persons spontaneously in their private life) or in the “white supremacy” case – there I would stonecold (and I do in several videos) cite their beloved scriptures and put my finger on there this passage and give what I consider disproof. Lately, some restrictions are canceling discussions that literally can save lives. In generally youtube follows the margins of opinions tolerated by the deep state.Example it’s science if you’re not allowed to question it…Galileo.

  4. The_Once_and_Future_Nope says:

    Ian is right. The censor as a noun is the person that makes the ultimate decision whether something is allowed to exist on their platform. Per the definition censorship is the act of examining for the purpose of suppressing undesired content. Whether the content was ultimately suppressed or not, the censor still engaged in the act of examining, and the decision making process as to whether or not suppression is warranted. That is the act of censorship. Whether a video being promoted is censorship, is questionable. Undoubtedly the video was subjected to censorship BEFORE it was promoted, at least common sense would suggest that it at least should have been

  5. Sonarv1 says:

    Promotion is to examine in order to promote content.

    To examine, in order… in order is what defines the word.

  6. Manny says:

    Ian is right. He sensors the correct content as much as he sensors the incorrect content.

  7. Simply_Skrypt says:

    The definition of Ian 🤣🤣🤣

  8. DCMoore84 says:

    Tim – “If you oppose vaccines, but you turn around and get the vaccine, then you don’t really oppose vaccines.”

    Ok Tim… I guess you don’t oppose censorship then. Because you say you oppose censorship, but then you still turn around and use platforms that support censorship so you can make money and you actively self censor yourself so you don’t get banned. So, you actively support censorship.

    • DCMoore84 says:

      Also, Ian wasn’t a “censor”. He was a reviewer or curator. The process of observing content and determining what action needs to take place with that content is a REVIEW PROCESS not a censorship process. It only becomes censorship when the content is acted upon.

    • Brandon_Baucom says:

      So you’re saying every right wing commentator that avoids getting banned on YouTube and uploads uncensored content elsewhere should get themselves deplatformed off YouTube and halt their audience growth by 90% or so since YouTube has a monopoly on audience? So Steven Crowder, Styxhexenhammer, Tim Pool, and every other commentator who publishes topics that YouTube will ban them for onto other platforms should just throw their YouTube audiences out the window.

  9. LifeSimply says:

    To examine: to inspect closely, to test the condition of, to inquire into carefully.

    Someone who censor’s must look, inspect, test, and inquire whatever they are looking at but the act of censoring doesn’t occur until AFTER the examination. Hence the definition:

    To censor: to examine in order to suppress.

    A censor must examine first prior to suppressing the information, but if the information being examined is not suppressed, it simply means they did not censor (suppress) the information. Censors must filter/examine/look into/read/find prior to making the decision to suppress the information but any information that is allowed to bypass the censor isn’t a promotion of that content, it’s merely allowing the content to go through it’s natural process of propagating through.

    Censorship is a two part process that can’t occur unless you look into it first but it’s goal is to suppress. Promotion is also a two part process that can’t occur unless you look into it firstly but it’s goal is to actively highlight and push the content to the front page, promotion is not merely allowing the content to go through it’s natural process of propagating.

    • chickens.forever says:

      That use to be the case, but with majority of todays censorship being done through rudimentary computerized algorithms and not sentient and objectionable humans, censorship has taken quite a left turn (with plenty of pun using the word/term left)

  10. oland says:

    Ian is right. Ian is the one considering the entire definition.

    “To examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.”

    Tim is interpreting it as.

    “To suppress or delete anything considered objectionable”

  11. unforgiven512 says:

    Ian is actually correct on the “censor” argument, and the role of a person as a censor.

  12. sirshade says:

    Ian loves standing his ground, especially when there is no ground for him to stand on. No, you aren’t opening anyone’s eyes, you are just making a stupid/nonsensical and illogical (often semantic) statement. To date I have not heard you make a cogent argument when you get worked up, perhaps you will one day come to realize and accept that there is a tendency for you to be wrong when everyone else takes an opposing position to yours….or maybe you’ll just continue to do yourself a disservice by convincing yourself that your fringe grasping at straws is REALLY the reality and you MUST convince everyone else of this profound finding.

  13. sirshade says:

    Gore should be censored, but a rap about killing people, doing drugs, getting drunk and raping women gets advertised without blinking. Yea, sure…makes total sense. All censorship is bullshit, if you want to protect people then provide them the tools they need to do it themselves. If parents don’t protect their children, it’s on them. I didn’t agree to have some whiny little brat, and I didn’t even get to participate in the fun portion of it. So why am I responsible for other peoples children, I’m already paying excess taxes to support them, it’s not my damn job to parent them and it’s sure as shit not my job to care.

  14. redmuskrat says:

    It’s like you’re forcing the word “fuck” into every other sentence. It’s like listening to my 13 yr old and his friends talk.

    • Dawn_Patrol says:

      There is no such thing as bad words. Just bad ignorant people like you. It is not your job or place to stop people from expressing themself freely. You don´t need to like it nor do you have to listen to it. Every study has shown that by demonizing words, people tend to use them more. Nobody but you is responsible for raising your children. If your 13-year-old talks that way you have nobody to blame but yourself.

    • DCMoore84 says:

      I feel the exact same way when Tim swears. I guess I have just watched him for so long on youtube that it seems really out of character for him. I don’t think I would have been interested in his content if that was his normal persona. It is just unnecessarily crass and adds nothing of value to the conversation.

  15. Buddymac007 says:

    Try Alignpay or Align Pay, they don’t censor or take you off for political views, Dan Bongino is involved in it

  16. Buddymac007 says:

    Can we examine and suppress what Ian is saying right now..

  17. Bmwtech says:

    Luke, why no spicy anti ATF shirts?

  18. AdamBerkeley says:

    Are they swearing more intentionally? It feels forced.

  19. chavenor says:

    Tim put up the DAVOS videos here in the member section. Heck put up all the removed videos from the past.

  20. cathy.drazek says:

    I posted a photo on Facebook that was covered as sensitive. It was a stylized vignette photo of a daisy as seen through a single lens of what can be assumed to be a pair of broken glasses on a sidewalk with people walking in the background with the text “Stand up for what you believe in, even if it means standing alone.”
    FB says:
    -This photo doesn’t go against our Community Standards, but it may show graphic content.
    -We use either technology or a review team to identify content that should be covered.
    -We cover graphic content so people can choose whether to see it.

    10 minutes later, my husband posted the photo of that gross ginger wannbe comedian chick holding Trumps severed head. It wasn’t covered at all.

  21. Ajax says:

    BURN!!! Tim Burned the shit out of him. LMAO (With that Ian Definition)

  22. RockettMan says:

    When it comes to censorship. Censor nothing. Create a Child button or addon that parents can activate on the device or service that pretty much acts as a upgraded version of parental controls where ian can perfectly control everything they see. Other than that, its the wild west like it used to be.

  23. Steezymac23 says:

    Ian is right to an extent on the Censor definition. But completely missing the point of what the censors job is. Yes a Censors job is to examine but his job is to examine and suppress objectionable material. A censor does examine but they examine in order to find material to remove because it is unacceptable. And promoting or filtering content towards specific people is not censorship, that’s targeted promotion. It’s removal for nobody to see is Censorship. Ian you’re a good guy but you’re misinterpreting what censorship is and what a censor does.

  24. deepseeded says:

    Deepseeded

  25. KoR33 says:

    Ian quite definitively said to look at the verb, then left the action part of what censoring is out. tim is right, even if dickish. happy that lydia jumped in to hash out where they were talking past each other because that’s usually what’s missing when arguments happen.

  26. Janaya says:

    Yeah,

    When Tim’s ego gets to him again and he kicks Ian off the show, I’m 100% out.

    Fuck your hatred dude.

  27. Janaya says:

    I like most of Tim’s content.

    However, If he keeps being a mega douche to his “friends” then I’m not going to be paying for this anymore.

    He’s only a mega douche 1% of the time but it is him, not Ian or anyone else, that completely ruins my night.

    • LordSeptum says:

      Snowflakes…

      • Janaya says:

        Tim is the one talking about building culture. When he let’s the mask slip, he shows that he is as fake as the rest of them.

        Character matters
        He is showing that his is petty.

        • FirstThessalonian says:

          No one is perfect

        • Mr.Arnold says:

          You’re objectively full of it. Tim is the most objective person on this show and just because he loses his patience with someone only AFTER they repeatedly are showing they aren’t intellectual on certain topic but acting like they are does not mean they have a bad character. You completely ignored everything before Tim getting angry. Do you work for CNN or something or are you just a dishonest person in general?

  28. likesdarkgreen says:

    Loving Lydia’s input in this conversation.

  29. GalaxyWhoop says:

    I think Ian has done too many drugs. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

  30. Terry says:

    I didn’t know sour patch was married!

  31. Anony says:

    Sour patch renews my faith in humanity. The way she dissected what Ian was doing, explained to him why it was pointless and how he could do it better was so spot on. She said everything I’ve been thinking anytime Ian goes on the semantic journeys

  32. dpowersmbcc@hotmail.com says:

    Why doesn’t Ian just make his own Iancyclopedia. Then we would all be able to understand his crazy definitions. 🤣

  33. nick_anonymous says:

    Tim and Luke I sent both of you a copy of my essay called The Rise of Technocratic Fascism. Have you even read it? I am working on another sample of my writing and I will be emailing both of you a copy of my latest work.

  34. Shannifin says:

    Ian is right. A Censor is the person who decides. Censorship is the act of deciding. Editors are censors. Uncensored literally means unfiltered.

    • DawnsHerald says:

      No, he isn’t. Yes, uncensored means unfiltered, but filtering something is not the same as censorship. Censorship is a form of editing, but not all editing is censorship.

    • Steezymac23 says:

      Well….. You destroyed your entire argument in the last sentence you wrote. Uncensored means unfiltered. Yes and filtered stuff stays in the filter and gets thrown out for nobody to see. Therefore if someone is uncensored or unfiltered then they are not censored which means none of the information they released has been examined and removed aka Censored. Ian refuses to apply the entire definition which is “a Censor is someone who examines…… and removes content that is Unacceptable.” That last part of the definition is important to its actual meaning. That’s like defining a Hydrogen Bomb as something that blows up.

    • ChineseCartoonCollector says:

      The thing that got them started was Tim or someone else brought up YouTube promoting content in their “featured” section which Ian said was still censorship. Tim seemed to forget immediately what prompted Ian’s comment and they ended up arguing about nothing / dictionaries for 15 minutes.

      I would agree that promoting content isn’t censorship. Censorship is deciding whether to censor or not censor content. And to censor something means to remove/hide it.

  35. TheReasoningPatriot says:

    Ian, read the whole fucking definition. To remove or delete. If you don’t remove or delete, you haven’t censored. Your lack of understanding of basic English language is disturbing. And, who the fuck gives you the right to censor anything I say? That’s the damned problem. If its against the law, its one thing, but otherwise, stay the fuck out of my speech.

  36. cschertz says:

    Ian you let me people decide. For goodness sake Trust us all to be real people

  37. EyesWideShut says:

    Ian isn’t making it up he’s actually correct but not necessarily upvoting as per the editorial with Tim’s early video.

    • Steezymac23 says:

      No…. He’s not correct. He is ignoring the “and suppress unacceptable parts of it” that comes after “to examine”….. A censors job is yes to examine something but there is another part of that job that makes them a censor and that’s the removal of material that is Unacceptable. It’s like defining a Hydrogen Bomb as something that creates a Nuclear Fusion.

  38. Pikoroju says:

    Damn Tim was a bit of a dick to Ian. He was arguing semantics of definition which isn’t helpful, but I think his point was missed on everyone perceiving censorship as bad. The portion of censorship that is contingent on the examiner is a considerable factor in distinguishing between good and bad and that the act of censorship does have it benefits and in turn can be abused and people need to be able to recognize that

    • Steezymac23 says:

      Yes I believe we all recognize that hence why we already had certain things like murder and rape and child porn and death threats censored. That’s where the line needs to be drawn on the issues that we have already decided collectively decades ago to censor. It is not up to the Tech outlet to decide that especially when they are protected by laws of the US specifically made for them to not suffer the consequences of some individual posting illegal shít on their platform as long as they take the steps to remove it as quickly as possible. And yes it’s a private company but they have become so big they could be considered a public utility.

    • Simply_Skrypt says:

      Tim is being a dick about it because this shit has happened multiple times, and the last time Tim told Ian “I’m over it, we are not fighting over your bullshit semantic arguments anymore. Don’t do that again”
      And here is Ian, doing it again.

  39. RJIsaac says:

    I feel like there is an obvious solution here.

    Have a site where people post content. When a piece of content is posted Users can flag the content as explicit (with subcategories like “serial content” “violence” “offensive speech” ect.) and/or illegal.

    Users can set their tolerance for what they want to see. So, for kids, you might have the filter set to 5% meaning that any content where 5% of the viewers or less marked it as explicit will be visible and any content that has more than 5% of the viewers saying it is explicit will be hidden.

    Some Users will see the unfiltered content and be the first to give feedback.

  40. Rachael says:

    Tim is such a dick. Honestly can’t believe he openly talks to ppl the way he does.

  41. mlduck83 says:

    Why do I feel like the answer to this is obvious? No censorship at all. Use up votes and down votes, no anonymity. Let the law handle the rest. Simple right? Luke would agree, I’m sure of it.

    • Steezymac23 says:

      No he does make a good point about illegal shít being censored. Cause it is illegal. But we all pretty much decided decades ago that it was ok to censor that type of stuff like Child Porn. Murder…. that’s a tough one cause it’s not illegal to post a murder unless you were involved in it and were doing it as a snuff film. The Wild West of internet in the early days was basically perfect. They still censored stuff like Child porn or anything illegal. I think the old line we had was perfect.

  42. NickMrko says:

    Thought,
    If you are not censoring the content /removing it. Are you a censor in that moment?

    • fooksie.ash says:

      Technically you could you go your entire career being a censor and never actually “censor” anything. That is if you think censor means block rather than filter.

    • FirstThessalonian says:

      Think EQ for music. You can place a high pass filter to cut out the lows, only high frequency is allowed. Or a low pass to cut out highs, 9nly low frequency allowed. Even if your music is no where near where you set your filter, it is still the act of filtering. Ian’s point was censoring is acting like a filter where only the content you want goes past you.

    • Steezymac23 says:

      Yes you are still a censor. But that doesn’t mean you need to be in the process of removal to be a censor. That is just what that job is. To actively examine material in order to find and remove things that are unacceptable. You could theoretically be a censor and never apply any censorship to the examined material.

  43. Sales@SiliconeDepot.com says:

    I agree with the broader definition of censor as in those who allow some content and not other content. The reason being is that by green lighting content that should have been banned you are in fact acting as a censor, insofar as offsetting further that which you want to ban.
    Just a thought.

    • Steezymac23 says:

      A censor is literally a person that examines and removes unacceptable material. Censorship is the very act of the removal. It’s pretty simple and not broad at all. Ian’s argument is similar to Progressives calling any kind of tax socialism.

  44. PhatJimmy says:

    Tim and Ian — BE NICE to each other please.

    It was had when A.C. left the show. We don’t need a breakup.

    Love you both!

  45. Genofast says:

    22:06 Ian stands up, 22:31 Luke sits down, 23:02 Lydia offers a chair at the table for everyone.
    I really respect the friendship you all have. It provides a foundation for you to have these sorts of tense arguments.
    Also, Tim, be nice to Ian. ✌️♥️😎

  46. Fifth says:

    Ian will have a really hard time explaining what “Anti-Censorship Law” means. According to him, it’s people trying to fight against anyone reviewing the content. Which is nonsense, obviously…
    Shows you it doesn’t really make you understand anything better if you’re doing this very thing and are doing it for years. Sometimes it makes you even dumber.

  47. Jontrem says:

    Jesus I am so sick of Ian and Tim arguing. Fix it before I quit listening.

  48. takko_the_boss says:

    I love hearing everyone curse. That’s the only reason I’m a member. Foul language.

    Luke: “Fucking motherfucker fuck!”
    Ian: “Fuck..fuckfuuuucccccck”
    Tim: “Fuck this cilantro bullshit!”

    On Youtube I know one of the only other podcasts that curses up a storm on public youtube is MEga64 podcast. Awesome guys.

  49. Deuce says:

    OMG SHUT UP IAN!!
    Love ya, but please just stop!!

  50. DolgerHanske says:

    So neither Tim or Ian knows what censure is😂🤪 Censorship is based on discrimination and bias. They’re getting it all mixed up with regulations which(mostly) is based on law.

    • Steezymac23 says:

      Censor and Censure are not the same thing. They were talking about Censors…. Someone who examines and removes unacceptable material. A censure is to express severe disapproval usually through a formal statement. Unless they start going on about censure in the last few minutes, I stopped to comment on someone else’s comment and haven’t watched the end yet. So apologies if they start talking about Censure lol

  51. GlutenFreeCat says:

    Time for Ian to take a break from the show. I love him but his semantic arguments are really fucking annoying.

  52. deboe103@gmail.com says:

    Omfg Ian…….just because DISCERNMENT is used during examination, it isn’t CENSORED until it is altered by way of restricting information and or access……

    If you want to argue that in a huge social media conglomerate that has entire censorship departments then the culture built within such a system has become more than the above described action of deleting or suppressing information.

  53. covfefeovich says:

    17:45…..Luke nails the important concept. It is all about the curation.

    RSS feeds were the high point of internet usability. Curated social media cesspools are mind control mechanisms.

  54. deboe103@gmail.com says:

    I rather like the idea of different rules that are laid for every platform…..anti trust needs to break up big tech and allow decentralization. Also giving users tools to curate the level of censorship would be better…..I’d prefer to watch what’s going on but if there’s graphic stuff I don’t mind it being blurred out

  55. deyshia@gmail.com says:

    As soon as Luke said what he said about the trending tab, I IMMEDIATELY thought of Tom Macdonald. Great job @SOURPATCHLYDS

  56. xen1401 says:

    honestly i don’t like the near constant arguments over dumb useless stuff when ian or tim go off about a semantics argument. it always feels uncomfortable and a waste of time. also i love ian and don’t want him to ragequit.

  57. JonSch581 says:

    No Ian, you’re wrong. Censorship is to examine in order to suppress. It does not say that it means you’re lifting it up or promoting it. I think you have to examine definitions more closely.

    • fooksie.ash says:

      Any act of censorship implies promotion to anything you’re not supressing.

      • oskar27 says:

        You can’t really call it promoting if the content is already up for people to see. The argument would make more sense if the content would first have to be reviewed and approved for posting

        • fooksie.ash says:

          How can you do one without the other? If you limit the pool of options you increase the likelihood of someone seeing the things that are available: If I remove option ‘z’ the odds of you picking another letter has gone from 1/26 to 1/25.

          I don’t see your point about filtering content before it’s released or after. How does that change the content? Filtering all content preemptively is almost impossible on a large scale, the infrastructure to do it would either be prohibitively large or prohibitively slow and probably both.

  58. Strangerthanyouthink says:

    Tim always has a rage burning inside of him

  59. beharris9 says:

    Tim, post all the Davos videos YouTube took down on your site.

  60. John_Beart says:

    I’m not even gonna sleep right. Food for thought. Very interesting. ❤️

  61. Jdbfortney says:

    My daughter was in the Corp. I remember she had been there less than a week, our first Skype.
    “Its not like TV”.
    I KNEW my daughter was gone.

  62. Jean2009 says:

    I never realized Luke had such a potty mouth… I like it😁

  63. John_Beart says:

    Mind blown a bit.. super interesting. Super tricky( or simple)

  64. Dathieflord says:

    I oppose to gun laws but i’m not going to resist arrest for them. You make no sense.

  65. CJ27 says:

    The problem with censorship is always relies on humans. Humans are biased hence any form of censorship is bad. Also can Ian stop derailing shit with his made up nonsense use of words?

  66. Element says:

    If a slave picks cotton to avoid the whip he must not oppose slavery.

  67. Jacob_C says:

    For a payment system, couldn’t you just set up a tip system using crypto, like Nano or XRP would work pretty well for that.

    If your feeling fancy maybe your own crypto that is generated from staking NFTs could be the payment system.

  68. AndrewHopson says:

    How long before Ian disappears from the show? I like Ian but how much time is spent arguing something nonsensical with Ian.

    • prcntm says:

      Tim needs Ian with respect to Timcast IRL. I thought about this a lot specifically because they tend to go head-to-head so much.

      Tim is inherently pessimistic because he’s inundated with the news day in and day out. He’s immersed in the political landscape and the takes its toll. His framing in most of his videos leans to the more negative side of things. It’s just what happens.

      Ian is inherently optimistic because he’s only kind of aware of the political landscape. He’s not buried in this stuff and it gives him a more positive (and admittedly a bit naive) outlook on the topics being discussed.

      They both provide something vital to the show. Tim brings in the facts and Ian helps you take a step back from it and see it from a different perspective. And Tim seems aware enough of his own biases to keep Ian around for this reason if nothing else.

      As for his argument, it has merit. We have colloquially defined censorship as ONLY the act of removal because it’s the most visible part of the process. What Ian is pointing out is that there is more to the process than JUST removal. There is an examination process that is largely invisible which is acting as a filter which has grown out of control. It can have positive outcomes, such as the examples in the video, but what the argument eventually leads to is “Who moderates the moderators?” If we put an organization in charge of holding Censors (Ian’s definition) to account, how do we then guarantee that such an organization is operating any better than the original Censors?

  69. Yes Tim was rude but Ian constantly tries to redefine words to fit any meaning. This is postmodernism in a sense and leats to the destruction of objective reality. I like Ian but this isnt a useful way to make any point. Tim should be more patient with Ian because he is a friend but I see why he acted this way.

  70. Bradio says:

    Poor Ian. Ian is right. And Tim is wrong.

    • Hypervolume says:

      Tim is not wrong. The definition Ian was reading read, “examine *in order to suppress*.” They are tied together. Censorship is the process of suppression. Of course what ever material that may or may not be censored would need to be examined first. Ian was being nonsensical by twisting the definition to try and score points in his (asinine) argument.

  71. Bradio says:

    Is it me or does Lydia’s mic seem out of sync with her mouth?

  72. Bittalion says:

    The act of the Censor is censorship whether the result is promotion or suppression.

  73. Strategos says:

    Censorship comes from the Roman political office known as the Censor. The Censor was responsible for keeping the Census, but he was also responsible for maintaining public morality. The process of Censorship does not simply remove objectionable content, but also can promote content which improves public morality.

  74. StuckNDaMid says:

    We already have laws. There should be no censorship beyond things that are illegal. Big tech can give users the control to block things they don’t want to see.

  75. danlee.tez says:

    Tim is such a dick and closed minded. Ian was bringing up a good point, and tim could not even expand his mind to even ponder the deeper nature of certain definitions and words.

    Deleting my account because I just can’t stand Tim’s pompous attitude.

    • Jacob_C says:

      Yeah, first time I thought Ian was right with his word definitions. Positive censorship would be putting forward only things that they want you to see, negative censorship would be removing things.

    • fooksie.ash says:

      Tim’s ability to be a dick is exactly what makes him a good journalist. Before you leave maybe consider why you came in the first place.

  76. MarksCNC says:

    Ian is the enemy

  77. Pavogani says:

    Either it was YouTube or the Timcast crew, however I was blocked from sending a Superchat aimed at Ian. And I quote. “Thank you Ian for supporting the Afghanistan vets, I cant speak for all of us but I will bet that we all fee like shit as I do”. I am glad to see Civilians hurt like we do over this thank you …and your tears..

    Unsubing from now on btw. because they do not give 2 shits about you or your standings…. they only want money.

    and no Tim I am not a coward…

    Signed, Anthony Cothran.

    • Kexessa says:

      Seems like this would be YouTube? If you were blocked by the Timcast crew you wouldn’t be able to view or comment on the show. Is your YT acct blocked from superchats on other channels?

      • Pavogani says:

        I tend to agree there but my superchats elsewhere worked… So can’t be 100% on that one. Also, I don’t think they knew my account here until I signed it. I don’t hide my name normally, so I used Pavogani here hoping people that I played MMOs with would see that and be like “I like this guy so why not listen”. It is all good though. Will just spend my money on Sargon now instead. IF it was YT and not the Tcc (Tim cast crew) this wouldn’t be the first time I have been overlooked. Even with 20$ superchats and being a member. All my opinion and I don’t expect people to feel the same. If he was to lose me he gained 10 more from the Alex Jones episode so it literally doesn’t matter…

    • Crunchry Boy says:

      Check what you typed. Maybe it’s just bad punctuation but I’m not sure what you were saying.

  78. HadesXY says:

    Tim gets more retarded by the day

  79. Mahniple says:

    Ian is pushing tower of babble type shit.
    The point of language and words is to communicate and if the definition isn’t agreed on it might as well be babble.
    Instead of redefining a word and creating more confusion why not go the other way and find the vocabulary to to be able to express complex concepts in un-disputed words.

    There’s already people changing what the definition of a woman is…

    • fooksie.ash says:

      Any act of censorship implies promotion to anything you’re not supressing. Refining a definition for a philosophical point is hardly the same as changing a definition for political bludgeoning.

  80. Rustyshackleford55 says:

    Subscriber content we’ve all been waiting for. Tim surfing the way back machine silently

  81. Koko says:

    Something that goes through the process of censorship may still be not censored. There. You’re welcome.

  82. steveo says:

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/alabama-lawmaker-proposes-bill-requiring-men-vasectomies/story?id=69008081

    looks like it has started those that said yes to vax mandate now get to have their balls chopped off

    good job democrates

  83. Edrification says:

    I would like to apply for the “Semantic Argument Moderator” position in the interest of increasing conversational efficiency. Thanks for your consideration.

  84. lettergram says:

    Ian, concerns around censorship is accidentally seeing something. This is an indexing problem. We have much more improved way’s to do search, now. Improve search / monitoring / censorship on search, but following is fine. You can select what to follow.

  85. steveo says:

    why cant you make minds where users vote and if you get like 20 or some then you remove the post or if its tagged wrong you know to fix it

    it would save admin time i think

  86. fooksie.ash says:

    Censor/censorship comes from the route word for assess. What Ian is trying to say is, any act of censorship implies promotion to anything you’re not supressing. That’s why it’s both.

  87. RuthlessAdmin says:

    They were at one point having the same argument that lead to the 1st amendment. I don’t know if that’s good or bad. Either way, I’m a “free speech at your own risk” kinda guy.

  88. Thequaz says:

    Ever wonder what Hitler would have been like if he had downs syndrome? Ian. That’s what it’d be. A controlling authoritarian that drools on himself and shits his pants regularly. Fire him Tim. He’s a cancer. Cut it out before it grows

    • winesjh says:

      Thank you. I’m sick of people shitting on Tim because he scolds Ian for his retarded takes that sets up illogical parameters for anything to be actually discussed or debated. He’s either dishonest or seeking to just be a contrarian, which is fine, as long as you can make salient points. Ian needs to go. Make him the camera guy

      • fooksie.ash says:

        Ian tries and fails to make an argument about something that doesn’t sit right for him and his “friends” instead of trying to help him articulate his point dismiss him out of hand. In this example all he needed to say was any act of censorship implies promotion to anything you’re not supressing. So maybe you’re not getting anything out of Ian but he thinks laterally like a Liberal and you’re only willing to think linearly like a Conservative. I wouldn’t hold that against you why would you hold it against him?

  89. Bentobox says:

    Hope you read this Ian, just smoke some weed, chill, watch some anime(Check out Dr. Stone/To your eternity), or play some video games!(New World/Far Cry 6).

    Sometimes I think you get too caught up in needing to be right. You were right about censorship being necessary on the illegal things when everyone had a full stance of “censorship bad period!”. You went too far when you mixed the meaning of censorship and promotion/featured.

    • fooksie.ash says:

      Any act of censorship implies promotion to anything you’re not supressing. I think he just misappropriated talking about the ‘English definition’ when he was trying to articulate what he did as a censor and came to a half baked point

  90. annasu says:

    I’m just glad Luke put an end to that squabble. “No Luke, we nuke” might actually become a reality.

  91. 556NATO says:

    Mr. Pool, my son and I listen to you every night. However, I was kind of upset about how you said, “if you do not want to be vaccinated, then don’t”. My problem is that I am single, with two kids, and totally against having the vaccine. My job told me, if I am not vaccinated by a certain date, then i will no longer have a job. Being forced into having something that bothers me, on this day, is rough for me. I had a bad reaction, but i also have to think about feeding my family, and having to put that aside to support them. It would be easy to say “no”, and stand up for what i believe is right, for my body. However, I have to put my family first. I unfortunately do not have the means to just walk away from my job with that kind of ease. When receiving the shot, there where many people that were in the same circumstances, as I. However, like me, they were also forced to have the vaccine, for their families future. I would just like you to be able to look at this perspective, from another side. I agree with you, about the shot, however, I am unable to support my family, while, at the same time, fight for my true feelings. I do enjoy your show, and wish you all the best.

    • dstrickl says:

      You are weak. They can make you do anything, so long as they can convince you that it’s for your kids. In reality, you are leaving them a world where their employers and government own their bodies. I have two boys, seven and three, and I still called my company as soon as the news broke about Biden’s executive order to make sure they knew that their workers were not going to play ball. They haven’t said the first thing about it because they know that a fair portion of the people who make their money will quit at a moment’s notice if they try to be the government’s lapdog. If we face insolvency, so do they.

      Sovereignty is a mindset and, as they say, freedom isn’t free. People will always try to manipulate you and hit you where it hurts to get what they want out of you. You can either capitulate to their demands or block the punches and call them psychopaths for trying to beat you into submission.

      You’ve already given in on this issue, but it’s worth considering: what will you let them do to you before you finally fight back? What if they keep doing this to you, making you get quarterly booster shots under threat of your children going hungry? They might want you to take other experimental drugs now, or to control your diet in the name of public health. Where’s the line? Will they have to literally point a gun at your kids before you do something? I understand that at the time it’s just a shot, but it’s about the underlying principle. Tomorrow it’ll be just a little more compliance, and a little more the day after that and one day soon they’ll have you in chains and on the way to a quarantine camp because they wanted more compliance than you were willing to offer. Either that or you and your children will all be simply doomed to live in the new dystopia with fake smiles on your faces, constantly in fear that you might say or do something that could make the basilisk cast its gaze upon you. Think about their future. Please.

    • EnderN7 says:

      All you have done is taught your son to be a spineless coward for money and comfort, pathetic excuse of a man that deserves any reaction you get, I hope it makes you unable to work so not only are you a coward, but a coward who starves to death for it

    • winesjh says:

      You don’t understand. Everyone knows you have something to lose. In a war, what fool thinks he has nothing to lose in order to win?

      I don’t mean this as demeaning or rude. But frankly, I think you’re willing to sacrifice your children’s future for short term comfort.

    • RustyTech says:

      556Coward

  92. DarthWho says:

    It’s honestly the constant deconstruction that really annoys the fuck out of me with Ian. Dude seriously, this is the crap the left, Marxists, and CRT idiots do to avoid actually arguing the topic. The sky can be green so long as I redefine green.

    Nah. Our entire civilization was founded on a mutual agreement regarding the meaning of words.

    I don’t understand if people do this in an effort to try to sound smart, o look at me I can deconstruct words, or if they are to damn stupid to talk substance so they just fall back on it.

    • winesjh says:

      I’m still in awe there’s people that think he’s progressing the conversation.

      He brings up his points solely to deconstruct the right/wrong of everything. It’s leftist playbook bullshit and I’m glad Tim doesn’t let it slide like others

  93. Gizmoses says:

    100% guarantee ian never censored communist stuff. Even though they, as a group are responsible for far more death and desparity across the planet.

    Censorship is bad. Because people like ian will be the ones choosing who gets to say what. User Filtering is the way.

  94. jrockjlaw007 says:

    Salt 🧂

  95. DrewishAF says:

    Could someone elaborate to me what, exactly, the problem with showing unredacted pictures/videos that show gore/death/injury? We all (hopefully) agree that child porn/exploitation is abhorrent and needs to be both censored and prosecuted.

    But you really lose me with the argument that people should be stopped from seeing/sharing videos with tremendous violence or real horror. I think part of the reason is valid: to curb encouragement and mentally scar the youth/weak-minded. But to say this footage has no place in our society makes absolutely no sense.

    We are part of the Earth’s fauna and have been subjected to the most violent and horrific terrors possible since our species began. Only in the last couple of decades have we, as a species, decided to completely shield ourselves from the nightmarish reality of existing as little more than sacks of meat and chemical electricity.

    People are so sheltered, in fact, than many of them have absolutely no idea what consequences loom around some things, people, places, activities, and actions. Imagine having a 13 year old kid who has been picking fights and bullying others. Or even a 17 year old who drives like a reckless asshat. Likely these kids have no idea what escalating violence looks like. They don’t know what death or dismemberment means. People read the word “genocide” or “raped and tortured” or “executed” and have no understanding of what any of that looks/feels/sounds like.

    We have developed this thin-skinned, unrealistic notion of how safe and beautiful the whole world is. There are girls who say “you guys are just racist bigots for thinking that women are endangered in Saudi Arabia/Congo/Iran so we are going to go there and prove you wrong.” They bought that bullshit narrative of a nerf-wrapped world and were both stoned to death in a town square. People deny death and harm.

    Only a few generations ago, people were constantly exposed to death and understood the value of life. They frequently lost friends, family, children, wives and neighbors. They had to end the life of an animal that they tended for it’s entire life just so the family could survive a little longer. These situations and explicit gore reminded people that they will not be long for this Earth. That made them care, plan, train, overcome, hope, love, and have a sense of purpose.

    What happens to a society that constantly tried to convince itself that everyone everywhere is good and the people are all immortal? You end up with Portland, LA, New York, Chicago, Minneapolis, Detroit, Milwaukee, and so forth. You have people who are all convinced that they will live forever because they have never seen death and horror. They may see a polished, elderly, relative lying peacefully in a casket every few years but they will never respect other people because they have no value of life.

    People get shot, hit by cars, stabbed, poisoned, jump from buildings, executed, severely injured, tortured, raped, set on fire, drown, and decompose. I believe that these kinds of images/videos are important to ground us all within the confines of our finite existence. And the very concept of death is what gives us such urgency and value in life.

    Knowing and acknowledging that you are a delicate sack of meat with an expiration date fills us with the desire to have a purpose. At any moment, you could be hit by a bullet, a meteorite, a truck, or any of the other myriad ways that results in cessation.

    Yes, this is a huge rant and I’m sorry you’ll have to scroll down to read others’ comments. But I have strong convictions about this topic. To me, there is something fundamentally different about the mindset that has been developing in younger generations (my own included.) You would be hard pressed to find many people under 18 who have actually intentionally killed an animal for sustenance and seen how death is so integral to life. Outside of some dense urban areas, you’d also be hard pressed to find someone under 18 who has seen/encountered a dead body outside of a funeral in person. I believe that is why so many younger generations are so quick to use violence and have no value for the lives of others.

    • fooksie.ash says:

      I only read the first paragraph of the long ass block but but I will point out that since simply watching certain things is illegal I appreciate that I can’t stumble across it

  96. JMac says:

    The entire definition –
    “examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.”

    The whole sentence IS the definition. One portion of the definition is merely something else.

    • johnny311duck says:

      i do not understand how some people can not grasp what people are saying >> why can he not see that reading a word or a few words of a definition can be used as a definition ( well i do understand there are some slow peeps out there > it is just sad ) also people who use the same word you are trying to define in the definition > example this one DEM politician said the definition of “Racist” = some one who is being racist towards someone else is a racist <<< WOW

  97. metalraider2181@gmail.com says:

    I get what Ian was trying to say. I think he was trying to point out that the examination without the actual deletion is enough to censor because your video does not have to be taken down in order to keep you from saying what you really want to say. It’s kinda like with policing. Not apples to apples, but if you’re driving fast and you see a cop, you slow down. The cop did not have to pull you over. No interaction occurred. You were “policed.”

  98. Slattery42 says:

    Poor Ian is driving himself insane trying to filter everything negative into a positive.

    • RichardB says:

      Ian is an extremely annoying contrarian who’s main tool of torture is using retarded semantics and pettiness. Listening to Ian try to rebut a point is like listening to AOC try to argue. I wish they would purge Ian, but until then i just skip the video 15 seconds forward.

  99. andrewpuckett57 says:

    3 dudes one screw driver. i remember it to this day.. it was in Ukraine, it was a older gentleman “ old man” he was a homeless old man who would ride around in the town on his bike. two teenage punks grabbed him off his bike and started stabbing him everywhere on his body, i can still remember the sounds the poor man made. i can’t stand old people but i really really can’t stand young punks.

    • DMC82 says:

      I don’t think the guy was homeless. Just some poor guy, a cancer patient, who got accosted going out for his morning ride. Really depressing shit.

  100. Pistbadger says:

    Orb or a bug at 20:04? Cast Castle Haunted or needs an exterminator?

  101. GreMIO420 says:

    Ian, we don’t care. Fucking Christ

    • RichardB says:

      I absolutely hate Ian, really wish they would get rid of him. He doesn’t add to the conversation, he derails Tim constantly and makes it awkward sometimes for guests.

  102. ItsWolf75 says:

    The word IAN is looking for is Curate

  103. AdeptDS says:

    Ian, the Bababooey of TimCast.

  104. AvengerXP says:

    Ian is right about censorship read the fucking definition correctly its in plain sight. As soon as something is in censorship review it is censorship. Take it up with Larousse or Webster if you don’t like it, it’s not his problem!

  105. Sketch_EM says:

    Tim I also got the fold z 3 it’s pretty cool

  106. christophermiche says:

    Censer is not the same word as sensor.

  107. Hunter says:

    Gotta say it… I agree with Ian on the polling debate. Painting an entire constituency based on a mere percentage of a fraction of a response is insane, I don’t care if someone with a master’s degree says otherwise

    • Rosherov says:

      They used the word “polling” because that was the subject matter, but what the convo really was about are the rules of statistics. Tim is correct – a random sample size of 2,000 would be considered as having a high likelihood of being representative of the population. Keyword – random.

      Ian is using the “you can’t ask 5 people something and extrapolate onto 350 million ppl” which is a non-sequitur (wrong word perhaps) since the sample is literally 2000. If the sample size was 5, obviously Ian would be correct.

  108. BlazeCast says:

    Tim REMOVE IAN!!! I am at my wits’ fucking end being forced to listen to a complete fucking moron derail good conversations and waste minute after minute of my valuable fucking time 8 times a week.

    If you absolutely have to have him, give him his own channel to voice his fantasy made up bull shit, and remove him from important channels for people who value their time and consumption of content.

    • BlazeCast says:

      I am dreading how bad Ian is going to fuck up the project. He make’s everything up; from words to stories. I imagine the collaboration calls are 20 minutes of productive conversation and 18 minutes of him arguing over something he knows nothing about. Just like this video. The conversation started off meaningful and positive trajectory, and he nose dived it into dictionary arguments and guests compensating. Absolutely HORRIBLE to waste precious time with Luke.

    • GroundXxXZero21 says:

      Tim don’t listen to this guy.

    • RichardB says:

      I completely agree with you! Ian is a huge detriment to the show. You and HUNDREDS of others, here and on youtube, have pointed out that Ian constantly derails the conversation and brings the quality of the show substantially down. Tim is making a good point about X, Ian thinks can bring up XYZ^2, Tim then has to spend the next 15 minutes arguing how wrong Ian is and how he doesn’t understand language. I hate how Ian destroys the flow of conversation and never apologizes or attempts to improve. He’s an annoying burden. Honestly, replace him with a chicken. At least the chicken produces egg, Ian only produces ire.

  109. AUDREK says:

    “If I am offending you delicate sensibilities you may choose to look away”

  110. Trealoff says:

    This is a day to stand and I shall stand.

  111. Waterman1 says:

    Ian HAS to have a lot of behind-the-scenes value-add to still be kept on. 2/3 of his input is embarrassing semantic contortions and the other 1/3 is getting two smart-sounding sentences about future tech out and then knowing nothing else about it when someone is interested and tries to ask follow-ups.

    I don’t understand why he’s still around, and I don’t believe he’s secretly smart and playing a part.

    • Rohan says:

      I mean his comment about “news article man beats wife” was 100% on point. He isn’t dumb he was an actor. He looks at the show as a TV show and has called it that multiple times. I don’t think he even believes half of what he says. He plays devil’s advocate to add spice. He wants to come off as a Juan Williams. Maybe I am Alex Jonesing . Maybe I need a beer.

  112. GrapeGrows says:

    Why the fuck can’t we say fuck on YouTube!?

    Great fuckin show

  113. Tylerconnor65 says:

    Time for common sense censorship!

  114. PeterRican says:

    Ian I love ya but shut up when your wrong

  115. sz_odin@yahoo.com says:

    I still have faith in the Shimcast dating site
    Charles Odin
    Catholic
    Male, 26
    CNC Machinist, employed
    Located on Long Island, moving to West Virginia
    Hobbies include racing my mustangs, camping, hiking, cross country driving, texas music scene, cooking and dogs
    Looking to get into swing dancing, horses and livestock
    Looking for female homestead partner
    Must like kids and be willing to have 12

  116. wack2270@gmail.com says:

    Yo what’s up, Timmy Malort. Fellow freedom lover, “Hailing from the great state of Arkansas”. Hey when will the Faucci Jesus on a syringe be ready…? Looking to Buy at least a Dozen pf them, to hang up all around my town. we need to start making the clowns out to be known!!!

  117. Baalshazar1 says:

    Tiny bit of o Longboi.

  118. Mathemagician says:

    Tell me you didn’t watch the Facebook/Instagram Senate hearings…

    Without telling me you didn’t watch the hearings.

  119. Cursed108 says:

    I still cant believe Tim replaced Adam with Ian… Seriously that was a HUGE BRAIN FART…

    • munchhasen says:

      Well there is a difference between having someone who is foil like Juan Williams on Fox to having someone truly challenging you. But agreed its hillarious to hear over and over again I can’t believe you replaced Adam with Ian

    • RichardB says:

      I miss Adam and absolutely detest Ian. I don’t what moron thinks Ian is good heel for the show, he’s clearly a burnt out drug addict that can’t follow up his own stupid ideas. Ian doesn’t add spice the argument, he gets me pissed off and I stop watching.

      i want to hear a clear, logical debate about topical issues. i don’t want to fucking hear what some idiot, or man playing an idiot, thinks about the 20 different meanings of the word censorship. I watch this show to learn and to relax a little, Ian has NEVER added value and frustrates me with his asinine interruptions. Ian even made me lose respect for graphene, that’s how dumb he is.

  120. Mattchupeachew says:

    Jesus Ian, just admit when youre wrong and move on, its not a big deal.

  121. Adminymous says:

    In other words when you promote someone…. you are censoring everyone else. If you were using everyone else understanding in the room it would be said like that.

  122. Heimburglar says:

    Ian finally got called out by even Lydia.

  123. AdeptDS says:

    I can’t believe it took Tim so long today to get frustrated with Ian. Ian will argue any random word has the opposite meaning (it’s not the first time) – and it’s cute for 20 seconds, but it’s literally not the definition of the word he is arguing about. The argument that “I did this for a living” (who let this moron review anything in the first place), is an insane argument. Yeah, her reviewed and censored. 2 separate words, 2 separate concepts. You review, and if you want, you can censor it.

    Also imo, censoring anything is wrong. Unless it’s illegal – like child porn. But what’s the argument for censoring Nazi swastikas? Who cares? To one person that’s bad, to another a Trump supporter is bad, and they censor that. Does no one not see the problem with censoring Nazi content? It’s literally the same thing everyone on the right is complaining about now. Both wrong

    Sometimes I wonder if Ian is really that dumb, because I can’t imagine a grown adult can be so dumb. It has to be an act, right? Please someone tell me people can’t be this dumb. It’s depressing.

    • Rohan says:

      I don’t think he is dumb at all. I think it’s all an act. He adds a little drama by being awkward. Check his interview with Chrissy Mayer out. He talks about being a good sidekick and all that. I kind of wonder who bankrolls everything even… Ian is not a slouch

      • AdeptDS says:

        I think Ian pretends like it’s an act, mostly because dumb people don’t realize that they are dumb, and even if he is called out for it, he can’t admit it. I mean I understand… if I was that dumb, I would probably say “I am really smart, it’s just an act” too. I’d see that in some scripted show, but this is basically people talking, and the garbage that comes out of Ian’s mouth (every 4th word) is just so dumb it’s hard to believe it’s an act. Like a hot chick, who uses her looks to get ahead in life, Ian throws in some “smart sounding” words into his sentences, to sound smart to get by. I know Tim, who clearly has a high IQ, sees this, so maybe he thinks there is utility in Ian being on the show… and apparently he is right, because he got me spending time typing up this useless commentary LOL

      • RichardB says:

        Let’s say Ian has the intelligence of 10 Albert Einsteins and 5 Ayn Rands, let’s say he’s playing a character and it’s all on scripted.
        Let’s say it’s all fake, he is still frustrating the audience. Look how many comments there are saying they want Ian to leave. If he’s so smart, why hasn’t he figured out that the audience hates him and people like me stop watching the show whenever he derails the conversation? How many times does
        Ian interrupt Tim or a guest and cause Tim to waste 20 minutes on some pedantic bullshit? It’s not endearing, it’s not engaging, it’s infuriating and i have been watching Timcast less because of this.
        Argue all you want that Ian is smart in real life, but how smart is a person that makes people stop watching out of frustration? Hell, with this video i couldn’t stand to listen to Ian have a petty argument about the meaning of the word censorship and stopped
        the video to read the comments.

        If Ian is not removed or substantially throttled back, I WILL STOP paying for a membership.

    • Enclyclo says:

      The only time I have ever thought about quitting your content has been over Ian. As I have said before I don’t dislike him but you need a code word or a hand sign so he knows when to shut up. I dislike wasting my time listening to childish tantrums. Tim, you produce really good content normally, please do a better job moderating it.

  124. Adminymous says:

    Tim, what Ian is trying to say is. If you “EXAMINE” everyone to Promote you are DEMOTE everyone else. However the system doesn’t necessarily need you to promote your videos. If censor employee’s are algo’s Theare looking for likeminded material they want to promote.. They will DEMOTE everything else after

    The difference is that Ian is understanding CENSOR to be EXAMINE then promote or DEMOTE.
    Where everyone else in the room thinks CENSORING is DEMOTING ONLY

  125. Smokey_mcpuff says:

    I was shot about 5 years ago, if you’re interested in more info https://gofund.me/bf1c9e6c , anything helps with my surgeries

  126. RossMG5446 says:

    Jesus christ Ian cannot help but try and redefine words on the fly. He can’t even begin to understand how this is a large part of the crux of the issue in today’s day and age.

  127. Floyd says:

    All that talk of censorship and not engaging in the very behaviour of an action you are vehemently against rings extremely hollow after singing a bullshit tune about somehow needing to learn how to interpret data after the Arizona audit.

    That is very disappointing but I’m glad that I now know.

  128. mookie1590 says:

    I like it when lydia converses this much, normally doesnt say much. But shes good at it.

  129. MeSoTrashed says:

    Tim said I’m the best. Don’t be jealous.

  130. Poegy says:

    Ian is right more often than Tim admits.

  131. Smoknsoul says:

    Ian is an editor, and you either censor or promote.

  132. munchhasen says:

    Also book Robert Barnes he has just filed suit against Tyson Foods for their vaccine mandates which refuses to have a robust religious exemption. He is an expert lawyer in this field. I believe he is also going to represent Robert Kennedy Jr and the Children’s Defense Fund in their lawsuit against the FDA in another good vaccine lawsuit. Please book Mr Barnes

  133. munchhasen says:

    For both your audience and Ian please book Richard Barris aka The Peoples Pundit one of the most accurate pollsters along with Trafalgar and Rasmussen. Richard Barris has been one of the most accurate STATE pollsters like in Fl since 2014. He has a track record he is good. He was hired in 2020 to be the pollster in that election by The Epoch Times. He can explain how to be an accurate pollster to your audience and why the other polls are BS

  134. JMac says:

    Interestingly enough, the non-vax people I know took issue with Trump in this area. While I’m sure some of the Trump fanatics would follow no matter what, that’s not anybody I know. I certainly wouldn’t, and I even worked on Trump’s campaign in Florida.

    I am vaccinated and believe it’s everybody’s own choice. I would never support a mandate, no matter what or who mandated it.