Kind: captions
Language: en
Candace Owens is going hyper viral for
her take on what actually happened to
Charlie Kirk. But there's another take.
>> Candace Owens, don't worry about the gag
order in the Charlie Kirk case. I plan
to violate it on the world's behalf. The
things I've discovered this past week
has are enough to burn the house down.
Yes, Charlie was betrayed by everyone.
Dun dun dun. And then she disappears for
two weeks. I love Candace.
>> You're not worried that she's going full
conspiracy.
>> What is full conspiracy?
>> Let's define it. They don't have an
internal map for how to judge whether
something is plausible or merely
intriguing. I think that Candace is
seeing patterns where they don't exist.
There's a big difference for me between
somebody like Joe Rogan who enjoys
conspiracies but feels very tethered to
reality and somebody like Alex Jones who
even though he really does find a lot of
this early stuff. If you watch his
channel literally every day is World War
II and everything is a conspiracy.
Candace has sort of marched her way out
of the journalist box that I had her in
in my mind over into the I see patterns
where patterns don't exist conspiracy
theory box. I worry that she isn't using
an internal rubric with which to anchor
herself to say, "Okay, these things
probably aren't true." She can make a
wild claim and produce receipts, but
then another person can come along with
receipts that counter it. I've got that
internal metric by which I judge things.
And so I make my decisions based on
that. It feels like Candace has lost
that. She doesn't or maybe never had,
but she doesn't have anything that she
comes back to and says like I say, I
know better than to trust myself 100%.
Just blanket. So I think I have all the
receipts. I still don't trust myself
100%. She trusts herself a thousand%.
And I cannot figure out how life has
taught anybody that that's the right
thing to judge things by.
>> So to me, like there's so much political
goodwill that came from Charlie Kirk's
death. There's so much political
benefits that happen from it. Even if
it's 1% of me, I do have a certain level
of suspicion to how clean it was.
>> Admittedly, when I craft a deep dive,
I'm writing from a very specific angle,
and I'm saying, "These are the things
that I believe to be true,
>> but I know those are constellations.
When you look up at the sky, you really
do see stars. The constellations are
made up, but the constellations help you
navigate. Oh, these are made up, but
they're useful." Then if you start
overindexing on these are so useful that
I'm going to forget that they're made
up, you run into trouble and that's how
you end up crashing. This is useful, but
its utility is going to be limited by
the fact that it is made up. And so I
want to get closer and closer to truth.
I feel like these guys are getting stuck
because it's so lucrative from a YouTube
perspective. They're getting stuck in
the constellation of it all instead of
realizing those are just approximations.
start drilling down even deeper and
really start fact-checking and getting
to the truth. Being on the ground and
reporting from the ground, I think adds
a ton of credibility. Now, I don't know
if Candace has. It's possible she has,
but I think that's a pretty important
takeaway here. We don't know what the
truth is yet. He's got a counterpoint to
all of Candace's claims, and I found it
very interesting that they sound
plausible as well. I'm not saying he's
right and Candace is wrong. I think
people are right to question this stuff.
I think people are right to think for
themselves. But one thing that I have
found extraordinarily useful in my life
is once I have a belief about something,
the economy, inflation, all that, I want
to go find people that are like, "No,
no, this is all good." And I want to
hear what they have to say. I want to
understand what the argument is on the
other side. If you can't argue the other
person's side, you don't understand very
much of it. I think a lot of times
people build their entire frame of
reference because they go down one path
with one person that they trust. They
build the worldview. they just pair it
back what that person is telling them,
but they're not actually building up
from cause and effect. So, you don't
want to put yourself in the echo chamber
where you're just hearing the thing you
want to hear all day. You want to find
the people that say the exact opposite
thing that you believe. But if you force
yourself to go outside of that, you can
really begin to make your worldview
useful. You want to find what is true,
thinking up from first principles,
thinking of the world through the lens
of physics. The big thing I'm like, not
enough people are talking about for me
is that his shirt like puffs up right
before he gets hit. And so what they're
saying is that that's the they they just
keep I believe the word they keep using
is concavity. That that's the
essentially what I'm imagining to be the
air moving around it as the bullet is
coming towards him. And so the
disturbance in the air, I guess, hits
him before the bullet actually hits him.
He goes in discord and essentially uh
admits to the crime. This is not
somebody who was like, "Oh, I'm
definitely going to get away with this."
It feels more and more like this was
somebody who did it. They were prepared
to be a martyr. They wanted to make sure
that nobody else got in trouble for
this. That seems like a very plausible
read.
>> Aluminum foil hats are very out right
now. Um they're calling this just
another dude on the internet talking.
>> So rather than dismiss the arguments by
saying this, he's just another guy on
the internet, show me how the things
that he's saying don't make sense.
Because if there's a breakdown in the
logic, fair enough. Could it be that the
government is involved in this? Like
that seems wild, but okay, maybe. But
when I hear another plausible
explanation, I'm like, "Oh, that's also
very plausible." And if I'm honest is
AAM's razor. It's the most simple answer
and therefore is the most likely to be
true. If I had to put a front runner of
I need an answer for why those texts
don't feel right. Now I have an answer
that fits a AAM's razor better does not
require there to be some big conspiracy.
Watching that interview, I was like,
"Oh, this guy puts together things." A,
I didn't know that they found like
scrape marks that potentially match a
weapon being behind him. When he jumped
down, I didn't notice the gray towel.
But people are saying, "No, if you
really freeze frame it, you can see that
there's like a gray towel behind him."
That he at least claimed that the gun
was wrapped in a towel. And I believe
the authorities have confirmed that they
found it in a towel. Then, okay, there
really it does seem to be a thing that
could potentially be a towel. and they
see scrape marks that this guy at least
is saying he saw with his own eyes that
okay, it's even got a ruler next to it
or a tape measure. So, you can see how
long the scrape is. So, it's potential,
you know, certainly not definitive at
this point, but it gives you the ability
to think through the arguments. Again,
just from first principles, like could
this be plausible? If it can be
plausible, then how exactly are we
ruling it out? So, I'm not saying that
this isn't a conspiracy. I'm just saying
there are other plausible arguments that
are being put forward and it's a little
premature to leap to oh 100% because
Charlie Kirk said that he's going to
stop being pro- Israel that he was
killed by the Jews.