Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan - NRA Conference
Posted Jun 4, 2022, 7:30 AM UTC
81670
Since Andrew's videos get posted here occasionally, I figured this might be interesting.
There's an interesting mix of people at that NRA conference. People who almost get why you can't have easily accessible guns and a complete lack of regard for mental health concerns, but then still miss the point somehow. And then, obviously, since this is Channel 5: the completely fried brains of that guy strapped with the MyPillows and that horrendous "fashion show".
The last fouth of the video at Uvalde is hard to watch. The woman from the teacher's union saying "we're already facing a tyrannical government when we have things like this happen" really resonated with me, though. It's a poignant way to describe the outcomes that this radical right-libertarian ideology leads to.
212
Yeah, even with socialist ra people that don't think we should introduce gun laws cuz Marx said so are completely missing the point as well. Like fellaz, this is extremely tyrannical, all of the guns have just made it feel normal to militarize police which leads to way more police killings. We're well past the normal intervention point of tyranny.
61
Bro if they really believed the tyrannical govt shit why didn’t they bring guns Jan 6th?
Also the same people say masks are tyranny, but the govt withdrawing aid if states don’t force people back to work during a pandemic isnt?
Cops killing citizens without due process isnt govt tyranny?
Govt rewarding corporations with tax payer money as we are seeing record homeless numbers in all cities isnt?
These people are all dumbasses to put it charitably
35
They are patriots cuz they hate tyrannical US government.
They are patriots cuz they also hate commie Chinese and Russian governments.
I don’t get them. Lol.
8
Why does trump not allow his believers to bring guns to his rallies? Wont that many heroes stop any wrongdoers???????
8
[deleted]
3
I feel like not enough people are pushing back on that angle of tyrannical government: who decides what is tyranny? What counts? Many people see the influence of the NRA as undemocratic and unacceptable, do NRA members think gun should be the appropriate solution for that anger?
3
Prolly as long as it’s not black people
1
Some of them Did Have guns. And they also had stashes strategically placed and ready to be brought over once the main mob secured the Capitol.
1
ok so they’re incompetent and even more reason they shouldn’t be trusted with weapons
1
What should we do:
-
make it harder to get guns, especially youth
-
ensure mental health is added to M4A
-
work towards better household outcomes (ie less single parents) by ensuring paid parental leave for both parents for a minimum of 3 years
-
utilize the best two options of lowering rates of abortion: proper sex education and funding of precobceptive devices.
3
"Precobceptive," wtf? You mean contraceptive? While I think people who get abortions when the fetus and mother are healthy and the sex was consensual are selfish fucking scum who should never raise children, I'm not against abortion. Crime went down about 20 years after Roe vs Wade, that's just a fact.
Extending parental leave won't do anything about deadbeat dads. My oldest brother in law had one, he told my mother in law straight up "get an abortion, I'm not raising a kid" and skipped town the moment she told him she was pregnant. I'm all for extending parental leave though, even via federal funding.
Wtf is an m4a?
What do you mean by "youth"? You mean 18 year olds who are considered old enough to vote and die in wars but not buy tobacco or alcohol? Fuck that, either lower the age of prohibition to 18 across the board or raise the age of legal adulthood. Scientists claim that the human brain isn't fully developed/mature until 25 anyways, it would make sense. You can't run for president until you're 35, obviously the founding fathers knew that kids are fucking stupid, lol. I know I was a total dipshit at 18. Telling people in a country full of guns that they can live on their own at 18 but not own a gun is completely asinine. It needs to be the same age across the board. The fact that a person can't own a handgun at 21 is already a travesty, either let 18 year olds own any type of gun that's legal or raise the age of adulthood/military service to 21, fair's fair.
0
While I think people who get abortions when the fetus and mother are healthy and the sex was consensual are selfish fucking scum who should never raise children
wow that sounds like exactly what they're trying to do. isnt that cool how that works?
1
Lmao yeah but they can have kids later in life. I think they shouldn't, because clearly they're irresponsible AND selfish.
1
The strangest part of this video to me is when he talks to the kid about 10 minutes in and the kid knows who he is and is happy to see him. I wonder if he just doesn't understand that he's what is being reported on here?
There's a potential darker interpretation though: while it's clear to you or me that Callaghan is letting these people argue against themselves (and with that regards, the editing in this video was fantastic, especially the cut from the concealed carry "fashion show" to the memorial in Uvalde), I worry that many of these subjects see his videos as a platform for their views.
162
There have been a few right-wing characters who've appeared at multiple events Callaghan's attended and act friendly with him. They even act excited to use the opportunity to talk about their views. I don't know if they never actually watch the finished product or, like you said, really lack the self-awareness to see how this is being framed. They just see themselves ranting on video and think, "Oh great, my message is getting out there! Thanks Channel 5!" even when Callaghan is clearly taking the piss out of it.
90
He does also treat them with respect, there's a certain art to showing someone whose views are very different to yours, but he never mocks or belittles them, and I think does have a strong level of emotional intelligence to still show them in a bad light, but never feels like he's being manipulative, merely allowing their own hypocritical views to speak to the audience for why they're flawed.
84
he never mocks or belittles them
I think the channel is kind of based around mockery, isn't it? It's not open, but it's inherent to the style of the content. Callaghan never has to come out and directly say anything, but he and his team definitely do frame things in ways that are mocking. The cut to him picking up the My Pillow box, for example.
He's incredibly skilled at blending in and making people feel like he's "one of them", and when that happens, people will say exactly what they think. (And to be fair, sometimes the interviewees say things so far out there that it would probably hard to make it look like you weren't mocking them.)
The extreme lack of self awareness of the subjects is a part of the channel that I always find myself grappling with. If a Qanon sympathizer watched his Qanon Conference video, would they even realize that the video is mocking them? How does satire function when their beliefs are already exaggerated to the point of ridiculous self-satire?
66
If a Qanon sympathizer watched his Qanon Conference video, would they even realize that the video is mocking them? How does satire function when their beliefs are already exaggerated to the point of ridiculous self-satire?
Two answers: some are literally so lost in their own insane beliefs that these "satire" videos are just...their regular life. They are oblivious that they are being mocked.
The smart ones, though, they know they cannot say anything because Andrew's brilliant editing makes it so contesting it would hurt them further.
There's an example in this video:
Andrew makes his opinion clear when he makes that dark cut from the fashion show, showcasing a cute toddler on the runway, to the Memorial, showcasing pictures of those dead kids.
He didn't make any commentary. These events were happening AT THE SAME TIME. RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER. He didn't have to do any dishonest editing, he literally just showed reality.
A gun nut watching this can FEEL the negative energy from that cut. But if he wanted to object, he would first have to admit something was negative about that scene. Since it wasn't edited, just reality, then he has to admit what happened there was wrong. And to acknowledge that an honest portrayal of events "makes gun-nuts look bad" would be admitting it was BAD to celebrate guns after a shooting.
But why would it be bad? It's unrelated, guns don't kill people, right?
Admitting that Andrew was mocking them with that cut would mean that they KNOW it was FUCKED UP to celebrate guns next to this memorial because they also KNOW that their guns are the CAUSE.
Methinks buddy who was stoked to see him is an example of an oblivious one.
20
Hearing stories from Callahan's past makes me think he just genuinely finds strange people very interesting.
12
Calling the work "mocking" by definition implies theres cruelty or cruel intent to what they are doing. I don't know what a better descriptor would be, but I don't think calling it mockery is appropriate.
11
I think he definitely gives them a cut of merch profit to ge them to come back and they are stupid so they don’t care how they appear
-6
Definitely? I mean it's clear that this happened with Crip Mac but can you substantiate him doing it with people like at the NRA event or the Qanon event?
With Crip Mac everyone kinda came away with "this dudes actually pretty cool."
9
I mean, Crip Mac was handing food out to people. That's a hell of a lot cooler than shouting insults at people across the street and then turning to the camera to say you love the same people.
10
I’m really speaking about the merch drops with the maga people in them multiple times. I feel like there’s no way he wouldn’t pay them for their time to help advertise his merch, like the blonde lady in the flag outfit and the older skinny guy that was at the white lives matter rally they aren’t cool to do that on their own. Could be wrong tho
2
His videos ultimately are platforms for their views. That's the appeal of them, any random guy off the street can get in front of the camera and millions of people will hear them.
The kid even says that channel 5 is people expressing themselves that the internet
49
There was this part where kid says 'they are human beings, I respect them' or something and video cuts to him calling them stupid or something.
30
It’s sort of the Colbert Report of it all. I know so many people that thought that show was actually conservative and was just poking a little fun at itself. Sometimes entertainment can get in the way of the message.
12
Like every movie that Paul Verhoeven has made. So often people take his stuff like it's supposed to be aspirational. Terrifying.
5
Oh my god I knew someone in high school that was exactly like this. They were very publicly conservative, sporting Mitt Romney stickers on their pickup truck during election season. But then one day they showed me this plaque of Stephen Colbert that they received as a gift. Then, they went on about how they were a huge Colbert Report fan. I was so confused.
4
This actually happened with the Colbert Report
3
This is journalism. A purely objective approach to what is happening in the world. We live in a society, "we" the people believe in the, "free market of ideas". Someone can argue that this market doesn't exist but what Andrew is doing is insanely important for Americans everywhere. It shows so many perspectives that for the most part, most people don't get to see. Even from this video, we can already see that while many still believe that the 2nd amendment means the right for every person to bear some kind of firearm, there is still a level of consciousness to the fact that firearms are dangerous and there needs to be a shift in how we approach people that shouldn't carry them.
0†
A purely objective approach to what is happening in the world
I'm sorry, but what? This is a class-A example of gonzo journalism. It's not objective and it doesn't even try to be.
We live in a society
🤡
7
Gonzo journalism doesn't have to claim objectivity to be some of the most truthful journalism out there. But whatever. I'm just a clown so fuck me.
0†
Gonzo journalism doesn't have to claim objectivity to be some of the most truthful journalism out there.
Okay, so it's not a "purely objective approach" (your words).
Also, it is not inherently truthful. There is gonzo journalism across the political spectrum, you just happened to agree with it this time (and I did too).
But whatever. I'm just a clown so fuck me.
That is not what I meant by the clown emoji at all, but okay. I was poking fun at your phrasing because it was literally this.
1
love this guy because he lets everybody talk but the leftists are always the only ones making any fucking sense and you can’t say “biased” because he lets everybody talk
94
Not trying to be argumentative but of course there's an inherent bias. Andrew and his team choose to show which people are featured and how the editing is done. They could have easily made the lefties look erratic and nonsensical. Fortunately, it's clear that Andrew and the Channel 5 team clearly have a left-leaning bias.
69
Yes, the edit is where the bias sits. Not being critical of him. We should all be aware of our biases.
39
His show is honestly one of the best examples of how editing can be used to make a point. A blatant example from this video would be the guy who says he loves everyone and then it cuts to him moments ago (or moments later, for all we know) shouting at the people across the street that they're idiots
That's an obvious bit, but there are so many other small ways they frame things, or little cuts they make -- or cuts they don't make, eg sitting in silence for a moment is a great way to let the audience reflect on how dumb that things that was just said is, while the interviewee is just waiting for the next question
19
the gun strap fashion show featuring toddlers wasn't made in the edit, that really happened
9
I'm not implying that it wasn't. I was pointing out that "unbiased" media doesn't really exist outside of raw footage.
Yes, the gun strap fashion show happened. But, if Channel 5 wasn't left-leaning, then we might not have gotten that brutal juxtaposition between the surreal ridiculousness of the fashion show and the defeaning silence of the memorial. We could hypothetically push it further. If Channel 5 was right-leaning, then they could have had a scene with some socialist with colorful hair and a pierced septum shouting into the camera about how guns are destroying society, all with an unflattering close-up for seasoning. THEN we cut to the happy-go-lucky fashion show, a fun light-hearted family event that is coded with wholesomeness. Since this scene is the later, the implicit narrative is that the SJW's are looking for another thing to be fake-outraged at.
Edits carry their own implicit narrative. (And just to be explicitly clear. I am glad that Channel 5 edited this video the way that they did.)
17
Even raw footage is biased, in what direction you point the camera, how you decide to frame it, how long to keep it rolling, etc.
16
To be fair, the left leaning people in Channel 5 videos make sense mostly because you and I agree with them and already think their viewpoints make sense.
Just look at the one guy at the 10:30 mark. He was stoked to see Andrew and has definitely seen his previous work. I guarantee he thinks only the more right leaning people in Andrew's videos are making any sense because they are using talking points he likely already agrees with.
The true test of Channel 5's bias would come from viewers who hold no strong opinions one way or the other.
One point I will concede on this, however, is he rarely shows the leftist archetype of this video's 'My Pillow warrior.'
10
What would the leftist equivalent of “My Pillow Warrior” be?
2
Tankies
4
Yeah but show me one in real life. Not the “lefties” that live in your head. This dude was out in public on video.
3
[deleted]
3
100%. He’s the obvious counter balance in this video.
2
Do you guys know what “video editing” is? Lol
-4
You're delusional as fuck if you think there's no bias here. What a hilariously bad take
-9
It's funny how often major talking points on the right are community, freedom, and mental health, yet they contradict this with their promotion of a hyper-individualistic capitalist society. Which, in my opinion, is truly a cause of community division. Their bigotry, authoritarianism, and eagerness for a society that requires every single person to fight for their lives by themselves almost requires a 'fuck you I got mine' attitude. In any hierarchy system to be elevated up is to deny or drag someone down.
It's obviously clear that the Right's talk about metal health and lack of community is a deflection so we don't talk about guns while knowing full well they won't support those issues either. Fundamentality capitalism itself is incompatible with community because being fair results in less profit, which in turn leads to less investment into moral relationships. On top of that if everyone is surviving on paycheck to paycheck there is no room for niceties, or relationship building, or community volunteering. The right talks about abortion, video games, and gangs because they want to blame them. They let their opinions guide their false sense of reality to policy.
Personally I have a pretty radical view on guns; near complete and total abolishment. Their role is merely a by-product of the lack of collective action. If we want concepts like socialism, communism, anarchy they require a strong sense of community and organization.
With those themes I also don't care so much of Marx's arm the proletariat because solidarity is much stronger than guns. The only real advantage of violent action is that you often don't need as many members but I feel this as a betrayal of these ideologies instead of embracing them. Which fuels my opinion on guns. Much like a company our refusal to work makes them beholden to our power. I find governments not much different. That's not to say I'm a pacifist, nearly all civil rights, including the birth of American, required violence. But guns needs to be a last resort and only for defense. With that I think it's possible to achieve these goals without their use. Any use of them will create resentment of those and the ideology which fueled it.
This is in stark contrast to the people in the video. They fetishize their usage of guns as they're wailing about trying to catch magazines full of bullets. A single slight of their freedoms mean they finally get to kill the people they don't like. Which is highly ironic considering when they see rioting in response to police killing people they find it as one of the most offensive thing anyone can do. It symbolizes their cult of party and ideology and that presents an extremely dangerous reality.
In our current political atmosphere they can't have their guns taken away because when they've finally received enough doctrinarian of how democrats cheated again they need to rise up and kill those people. Like the Buffalo shooter there is only so much propaganda someone can take in before they feel like they need to act. Everything from antigovernmental groups, alt-right pipelines, and conspiracy need more and more violent language to stay relevant, to absorb more followers, and if those people take action, as long as they're hurting the right people it suits their politics just fine.
Which pretty much sums the ideology of these people. They rather be afraid of their government and maintain their guns to use against it even if it means children get gunned down in schools every week. Only they are allowed to have the freedom to rebel by killing people because if you have a different pollical outlook and break a statue that needs 10 years of prison. Their ideas are morally correct no matter the sacrifices, no matter the violence, and no matter how fascist and authoritarian they must be.
80
The only real advantage of violent action is that you often don't need as many members but I feel this as a betrayal of these ideologies instead of embracing them.
lenin wrote a lot on this concept later and basically a lot of communists agree with your logic but feel that the reality is a large enough force to change everything without violent revolution will just never be assembled, due to the pacifying power of capital in the hands of the elites.
43
It's funny how often major talking points on the right are community, freedom, and mental health, yet they contradict this with their promotion of a hyper-individualistic capitalist society.
Ding ding ding. In my opinion, the whole system is the problem. Coupled with a strong emphasis on indivualism and success being tied to one's worth, you've got a recipe for disaster. When success solely depends on the individual, it makes sense that failure would be perceived in the same way. How do you cope with that ? The only possible explanation is that you're worthless.
23
With those themes I also don't care so much of Marx's arm the proletariat because solidarity is much stronger than guns. The only real advantage of violent action is that you often don't need as many members but I feel this as a betrayal of these ideologies instead of embracing them.
In the context of our current U.S. political climate, my issue with the idea of the 2nd Amendment existing to ensure we can overthrow a tyrannical government is, well, look at the fuckers most commonly arming and organizing themselves for that scenario.
There's no right-wing Gravy Seals militia that represents my views or the views of at least half of Americans, if not the majority. If they actually succeeded at overthrowing the government, it'd be like a Taliban takeover on a much larger scale. I don't think they're actually capable of that right now, but right-wing extremism has certainly been on the rise in recent decades.
If anything, fascists want guns so they can be the ones to install a tyrannical government. They're anti-democracy and anti-freedom for anyone who doesn't align with their world view. They lust for this rebellion scenario because more often than not, democracy doesn't actually pan out in their favor.
17
[deleted]
0
Never thought Sweet Child of Mine would ever make me cry, but here we are.
It's always the little things that get you, when dealing with a loss. And the thought of the poor girl who used to dance around her room to this song, murdered in cold blood while cops waited outside...
76
[deleted]
12
"sporting weapons" that are "necessary to protect my family from the tyrannical government."
They are either one or the other. These people don't even know how to lie anymore.
43
“Don’t let those antifa communist bastards take your pillows away.”
Damn even when I want to rage out and cry to the heavens Andrew has me laughing my ass off.
36
These guys are really not always the most responsible journalists, but this video was absolutely crushing. At the very least we should be able to connect on this level as humans. Anybody who isn't moved by this video to want to sit down and come up with something to make things better simply isn't human.
22
At the end of the day, gun control law, like all law, has to be enforced by the state through law enforcement. If you do not trust law enforcement to fairly and uniformly enforce gun control law (and there's mountain of evidence to suggest that it indeed will not fairly and uniformly enforce gun control law), then talking about the efficacy of gun control is a moot point.
The goal of this settler-colonial plantation society is for marginalized communities (POC, LGBT+, disabled, etc) to be disarmed while the non-marginalized community (ie cishet white people or more specifically cishet white dudes) is armed in order to function as deputized jailers. Whether through legal means, economic means, or otherwise, this is the ultimate goal.
People rave about the 2nd amendment as the final defense against tyranny when the real purpose of the 2nd amendment was to create a self-armed settler militia to watch over the land stolen from the Indigenous. After all, the 2nd amendment has never applied to Indigenous nations defending themselves and their land from settlers. What could be more tyrannical than a bunch of genocidal settlers trying to steal your land and destroy your people?
This doesn't mean that there's going to be a law that says "only cishet white dudes can own guns, no one else can." There's also the issue of law enforcement ie pigs. Pigs, as white supremacist pieces of shit, will 100% not enforce the law equally. In terms of gun control, this means marginalized communities get to experience the full extend of the law while white people, especially white fascist paramilitary types who pigs ideologically agree with, will get a pass. Many pigs are also members of those fascist paramilitary militias. Do you really think they're going to actually enforce gun control on themselves? Of course not.
The majority of these mass shooters such as the Buffalo shooter are already known by law enforcement. If they already had brushes with the law, why didn't the law do anything to stop them? Because the vast majority are white dudes with reactionary politics, potential deputized jailers, so they need to be treated with kiddie gloves. There's a reason why you almost never see a Black spree shooter killing white people. Why? Because any potential Black spree shooter would've long since been caught by law enforcement before they did the deed. Dorner only got away with it because he was an ex-pig. In their eyes, white dudes killing Black people is good while Black dudes killing white people is bad.
Why did the Buffalo shooter calmly surrender to the cops and why didn't the cops kill him like they killed the Uvalde shooter? Because he knew that by killing a bunch of Black people and striking fear into the Black community, he was doing the dirty work for the pigs and faithfully carrying out his job duties as a deputized jailer. He'll probably serve a pampered jail sentence, get out early for "good behavior," and get massive financial benefits from the pro-gun/pro-cop/paramilitary crowd, the rewards for faithfully carrying out his job duties as a deputized jailer.
These spree shooters are already resembling (white) domestic stochastic terrorists, and it's only going to get worse from here. A school shooting is going to happen and by sheer coincidence, it's also a school where prominent Black organizers' kids attend. A church shooting is going to happen and by sheer coincidence, an IWW meeting is in session when the shooting occurs. A spree shooting targeted at homeless people is going to occur and by sheer coincidence, the shooter times the shooting so that Food not Bombs is there as well.
People need to read up Operation Gladio, especially how it played out in Italy and Belgium. It looks like what we're starting to experience now. I personally believe the feds already have a list of potential school/spree shooters and they're going to begin "activating" (by egging them on to do the deed in /pol/, private Discords, and so forth) the potential shooter that's closest to a leftist target. For example, if there's a prominent union organizer living in Phoenix, Arizona, the feds are going to egg on a potential shooting living in Arizona to do the deed. Whether the shooter actually kills the organizer isn't the main goal, the main goal is to strike terror (the terror in terrorism) into the heart of the organizer and make them waver in their organizing.
16
"When the founding fathers, like, defined freedom, they didn't think AR's were gonna be a part of it."
"Or black people"
this is what people talk like now.
5
Can we just call the NRA followers weapon kink supporters?
Its honestly a "thing" they have for guns. It has to be sexual.
2
The best journalist out there at work. Thank goodness for Channel 5.
2
The cut from the "fashion show" to the silent memorial and school was fantastic. Absolute punch in the gut.
Andrew killing it as always. Hopefully he continues to push on these types of issues.