Hey there.
You might have noticed that I like to keep track of all the latest, bizarre insults that internet weirdos like to come up with.
You know, cultural Marxist, beta, cuck, virtue signaller— all the greats.
One of the latest additions to that list is the term...
which is used to decry everyone who's not like them as uh,
degenerate, feminized, weak losers who are also, for some reason, also leftists because of soy.
[GARGLES SOY MILK TO TUNE OF "THE INTERNATIONALE"]
[DING]
And for once, I hesitate to admit... they've scored a slam-dunk.
They're onto us!
They know that *beans* are the reason why leftists think what they believe.
It can't be because of all the evidence.
No, they-- they've got us.
And you can't prove otherwise, because that's just the objective truth!
At least, that's what they think.
Here's a comment from one of my latest videos.
So, let's dispute the facts!
♪♪
The theory that soy is bad for you stems from a certain superstition in the bodybuilding community.
Here's the YouTube channel of Elliott Hulse, a professional bodybuilder with 1.7 million subscribers.
Well, this guy knows what he's talking about.
I wonder what he thinks about soy?
"Soy Protein Makes You Weak & Womanly".
[Hulse:] Almost every bit of soy in the United States or in the west...
[mumbled] you know,
...is going to be genetically modified.
Now, I'm not saying pro or con for genetically modified foods, but it's fucking weird.
Alright?
It just. it sounds like freakish and Frankenstein-ish to me.
I don't know the end result,
 you know, it might be the greatest thing that's ever happened to humankind. I don't fucking know.
I don't think it's a good idea, I don't like it, but I can't tell you the truth, you gotta figure out yourself.
That's a great idea Eliott. I'd have never thought of that. Thanks a lot.
So,
[Grabbing the patented [Citation Needed] button]
where's your evidence that soy feminizes people?
I would offer you to pick up a book called The Whole Soy Truth by Kaayla Daniel(s)
[Hbomb] Uh, It's actually called The Whole Soy Story, Elliott
But let's not get hung up on that.
This book is authored by "professional" nutritional iconoclast Dr. Kaayla T. Daniel, "The Naughty Nutritionist".
"Telling the truth that's too hot to handle!"
I believe that's code for
She used to call herself "The Naughty Survivalist"?
But she eventually changed her name and wardrobe after realizing her target audience were having trouble finding her
in that camo jacket amongst all the dense foliage in her beige living room.
She outlines some of her main claims about soy in her video entitled "Moobs, Man Boobs and Other Environmental Estrogens"
[DANIEL:] "All of those soybeans contain...
phytoestrogens; that's plant estrogens, and they are a form of estrogenizing influence on the body.
They create hormonal havoc, they create endocrine disruption."
[Hbomb] Soy contains
which are obviously feminizing, because they're the plant version of estrogen.
Resulting in lower testosterone along with stuff like man boobs or being turned into a weak-willed feminist who definitely doesn't even lift.
Now, Dr. Daniel's description doesn't list any sources for this?
and the rational skeptic thing to do in this context would obviously be to just assume that means there aren't any without checking.
*Sigh* So alas, it seems that I'm not a true skeptic yet,
I'm just a mere mortal.
Because I went and checked anyway, and I did find some studies.
But *Sigh*
How do I... put this in a way, that makes it not sound rude?
The studies didn't say anything like what this...
Lying... Liar,
lied about.
For example, while trying to find Studies on the effects of soy intake on estrogen and testosterone levels
I found a paper which assessed all English language studies there had been as of 2008, in which men consumed soy in their testosterone was tested,
which at the time was 32.
- check out the link in the description -
the paper pretty definitively suggests that soy foods, and, the Phytoestrogens in them thereof...
do not alter the testosterone concentration in men.
Bear in mind, this wasn't just *one* study,
this was a meta-analysis of the results of *all* 32 other studies there had been at the time.
Now does that mean we can therefore conclude that soy has no effect on testosterone levels?
Not quite...
You see in science it's rarely productive to be that conclusive about something.
instead, we'll say that the evidence quite... reliably suggests, that that's the case.
But what about soy's effects on other things that men like to worry about a lot, like uh, sperm count?
Well, another paper from 2010, examining the nine clinical studies into the effects of isoflavone exposure on estrogen levels, found no evidence that it affects those levels *at all.*
Which suggests there's no link.
Now, at this point in my research I was wondering:
when taking them doesn't seem to affect the levels of estrogen or testosterone in your blood?
Well, it's because in terms of chemical structure, They're very similar. Here's a handy picture
I found on Wikipedia comparing the makeup of isoflavones and Coomer stands to estradiol, the major estrogen hormone.
Their construction is very similar-
but the actual chemical components are very different. This means they *do* bind with estrogen receptors,
but the effects are very different, because, to put it scientifically; they're made of different stuff!
This means that they don't really have comparable effects.
But who cares about that?! Kaayla Daniel is fighting back with rigorously researched-- um,
Anecdotes... Like this one!
Scientists first linked phytoestrogens with lowered sperm count and other reproductive problems in the 1940s, when they diagnosed clover disease in sheep.
Dr. Daniel is so strapped for... *actual,* compelling evidence,
That she's down to Studies from the 40s, looking at the effects of a different plant,
on... sheep.
Now, I never really paid *that* much attention in biology class, I'm really sorry Mrs. Baldwin,
but I'm *pretty* sure I distantly remember, that humans are... *monogastric,*
mammals. Which means that we have one stomach that digests *everything* we eat.
Whereas, some animals, for example...
Sheep,
are ruminants. Which means they have a four chambered stomach that digests things multiple times,
snd they also regurgitate foods that they can chew it again, and swallow it again.
It's a little bit disgusting, but, that's just how some animals digest things.
This is why sheep can eat grass, but humans can't.
Well, you- you *can,*
no one's stopping you, there's no laws,
[GROWLS]
Just try and stop me, Brussels!
AAAAAAAAHM—
[SPITTING]
*Grass contains silica, which can seriously mess up your teeth, like, permanently,*
**DO NOT EVEN DO THIS FOR A JOKE**
So, given the quite large
dietary digestive and metabolic differences between humans and sheep,
I think it's fair to say that *maybe,* a study about...
how male sheep
digested red clover, and the effect *that* had on them, might not be *fully* relevant to the effects of soy isoflavones on humans.
So, to sum up, some plants make a hormone that *looks* like estrogen in composition,
but doesn't have the same effect because it's actually a very different chemical.
However, some people who don't know that, and can't be bothered to check,
saw the word "estrogen," and leapt to conclusions that it must be feminizing the same way estrogen is.
The way science classifies and names chemicals,
has effectively *tricked*
a bunch of people who don't know better into making wild assumptions when the data shows otherwise.
Which, sucks,
but you've got to name things somehow.
you know it's important that you...
have a standardized system of classification,
and, the one they picked happens to...
[trying not to laugh] Cause massive problems for bodybuilders.
I bet...
...didn't see THAT coming!
- My apologies to the descendants of Antoine Lavoisier -
I'm reminded almost immediately of the equally faux scientific alpha
[impersonating] BETA
beliefs popular among the manosphere, pickup artists, and others,
originally based on a study of wolves, that was later found through future research *by its own author,*
to not even be accurate *to* wolves.
These same kinds of folks have happily combined these two
half-baked concepts, hence the use of terms like,
"low-T beta,"
And the insistence that
[mockingly] "soy must have something to do with it, because that's what they all eat, apparently!"
"And I think I saw a word with estrogen in it, somewhere."
"I rest my case."
"on the edge of a cliff."
"U-u-uh Oh no! The case has fallen off!"
"Awh, no, it's on fire!!"
Soy and it's supposed affects was eventually picked up by the closest thing the far right has to journalism, Rebel Media, and then later Infowars.
Incidentally, Infowars sells diet supplements containing soy on their website.
Probably should've...
checked the label there, shouldn't you, Paul?
[PJW:] "I take Brain Force."
which brings us to Infowars editor,
soy hater,
and soy salesman;
Paul Joseph Watson's video on the topic.
Which we're going to look at in more detail now because,
I think it'll be quite useful to do so.
And also funny!
The video begins with a spiel about the BuzzFeed Try Guys.
[PJW:] "You've probably seen the BuzzFeed Try Guys video,
where they measure their testosterone, and it's literally *half* or less the normal level for a man.
Their testosterone is *so* low, it's *below* the average for an 85 to 100 year old man."
[Hbomb] This claim, and in fact this exact table, has appeared all over
the rogue's gallery of right-wing and Manosphere websites.
infowars has it, of course,
but there's also Return of Kings,
Dailywire,
AltRight.com,
Reddit,
Return of Kings again?
[Roosh V:] "So it's like a gang! You guys are writing the same thing!"
[Hbomb] Gosh they're really proud of this one. And its founder Roosh V's internet forum.
These articles and Paul's video are full of speculation that this
testosterone level is completely unhealthy and terrible and bad for you,
but...
Is it?
I'm not really sure I see the validity and looking at one number
and saying,
"Aha! These guys are dangerously unhealthy!"
"Because of a graph I googled of averages."
Human biology is rarely so simple.
Trying to stick as close as you can to a number you found on the net,
can be incredibly damaging.
in 2010 on a forum for discussing supplements, a guy had a test and found he had a level of 212,
again- the exact same level as Ned, supposedly-
But then half a month later it went up to 364, suggesting these numbers are a temporary fluctuation
that's fairly normal in a 25 year old male.
Despite this, anonymous people on the internet,
started telling him he had the testosterone of a *70* year old,
and others recommending a dosing cycle
of *steroids!*
All of this,
because of a cargo cult approach
to a number
on a graph.
This is illustrative of some quite deep hang-ups and anxieties
in male centric circles towards a single hormone of many,
that they've been told constitutes manliness.
This isn't just a silly belief that some people were wrong about,
this is an actively damaging approach,
I-- *Sincerely* hope that
this guy didn't start taking steroids
because his hormone levels, briefly, on...
*one test*
fluctuated below a level that he found on Google.
Personal anecdote: When I was 21 I was really worried about this sort of thing.
I went in for a blood test, and the doctor told me that I had above-average testosterone
for someone my age. Which was,
really, really cool! But,
THEN the doctor said, "you know a lot of people your age come in worrying about this stuff,
and, it's really quite silly."
"If you're healthy, and you're not experiencing any major problems,
and your blood panel comes up fine for
no other major disorders, then chances are, whatever testosterone level you have,
is fine for you, and
actively chasing a number that you found on the Internet,
can be really, really damaging."
"If you take steroids, it can mess up your body's internal
hormone production and actually *reduce* the level of testosterone that your body *makes,*
and,
really,
all you're doing,
is...
Enriching the supplement industry.
Just out of interest right now
Let's take a show of hands as to which is more likely to be true:
That all four of these guys has an unhealthily low testosterone level even for someone several times their age,
And the literal Doctor who they visit regularly for videos like this, Dr. Jesse Mills, a urologist
specializing in male reproductive medicine, and surgery, *and* director of the men's clinic at UCLA,
hasn't noticed anything from these tests, or that any of them know that they need to do something about their
dangerously low testosterone,
despite it literally being the thing that he specializes in
That... right wing idiots on web forums who googled the number in five seconds,
don't know everything there is to know about the science of endocrinology.
That's the study of hormones, by the way. What a lovely word.
The meat, or should I say, the plant protein of Paul's video is situated
entirely around the claim that soy is bad for you because it contains phytoestrogens.
In other words, the thing we've already debunked in this video, but,
for a laugh, let's look at how he does it specifically.
[PJW:] "Soybeans contain high amounts of phytoestrogens,
organic compounds that mimic the *female* hormone estrogen, in the human body.
This reduces testosterone and lowers male sperm count."
[pause click]
[Hbomb] Paul here is word-for-word quoting an article in Scientific American- Well, actually
It's a very short post on the... "blog" section of the Scientific American website, and, by word-for-word...
I mean,
[PJW READING THE BLOG PO - I MEAN ARTICLE]
[Hbomb] This bit is, uh, how do I put this... not there.
Paul made that bit up.
The article actually said:
[READS:] "and, in **animal** studies,
has been shown to reduce testosterone levels."
Here, we're seeing the right-wing reactionaries approach to scientific process drawn into close focus.
When reading a piece of information he is quoting as a source of truth in his video,
and finding that it's... just a little bit *too* nuanced,
he alters and re-words it to suit his own agenda.
I see here we're back at the Kayla Daniel(s) School of Science, where sheep and humans apparently have the same digestive system.
I'm fairly certain that the blog post here is referring to the studies on sheep we mentioned earlier.
I don't know for *certain* though, because the blog doesn't cite a source for this claim,
because it's a rubbish one-paragraph blog, that only an *idiot* would source as definitive proof of anything.
You might be thinking, "Oh, but the word testosterone is highlighted. Maybe if I click it, It'll link to the study showing it."
It links to another article about testosterone. In fact it links to an article from *after* this one was written.
Someone... went back and added the link to explain what testosterone is...
four years later?
Who's in charge of the blog section of Scientific American?
You might even think,
"Ooh, what about that link to the human reproduction PDF?"
Let's open that real quick.
It appears to be an OxfordJournals.org press release, ABOUT,
Some kind of journal,
but,
i-it's a blank PDF now,
so... [chuckles]
I mean, they-they're trying to cite sources, but--
So, Paul's proof that phytoestrogen reduces testosterone is...
Some tests on SHEEP from the FOURTIES,
that he hasn't even read because the blogpost he's using as a source doesn't even link to it,
and...
being ignorant of the fact
That there's been 32 studies of the effects of phytoestrogens on humans that found no connection whatsoever.
Now, just as an aside I think it's important to point out that animal studies aren't inherently useless.
Animals *can* be good pointers for the effects of a substance on humans, and,
we can also perform tests on animals that it would be unethical to do on humans.
However, when there are examples of human data,
barring extenuating circumstances, the human data is probably more accurate.
The 40s' sheep study - or other studies on animals for that matter - should not be given as much consideration
if they contradict the research we've done on humans.
This article was published on July the 23rd, 2008,
and we know - because I cleverly set this up by telling you earlier - that as of July the 1st, 2008
there were 32 studies into the effects of soy on human testosterone levels.
This article brings up animal studies specifically because that's all they've got backing up their hypothesis that tofu lowers sperm count,
apart from the study they're about to reference, which we're going to get to in a second once we see how Paul sums it up.
[PJW:] "Men who eat half a serving of soy a day have 34 million fewer sperm per millimetre than those who don't."
Wait, what was that?
"Sperm per millimetre."
"SPERM PER MILLIMETRE."
"MILLIMETRE."
Okay... bef--before we even get... to the study, before we *even* get to the—
the word is "milliliter."
Milliliter is a measurement of liquid, and a **millimeter** is a measurement of length.
I don't even know how you got this wrong! The word. is. *literally.* in front—
PAUL!
YOU'RE A FUCKING JOURNALIST!
It's such a simple thing to get right, and he CAN'T EVEN—
Now, far be it from *me* to take Paul or the one-paragraph blog post he cites entitled...
at their word,
but I'm gonna go ahead and actually check the sources they cite.
Check out the link in the description, sperm fans!
The scientists got some men to provide a semen sample and answer a questionnaire about what foods they consumed,
Including foods that contain soy.
They then sorted the samples into four groups:
No soy intake, and then varying tiers of soy intake, and looked to see if there was a correlation with the results of the sperm sample.
The mean average sperm concentration in millions per milliliter was 106 for the group with no soy food servings,
while the average for the group that had over 0.3 servings per day was 72.
Which, does kind of show a correlation, doesn't it?
However,
you might notice a couple of weird things here.
Firstly, the group that has between 0.01 and 0.07 servings per day had an average of 92.
But the group with between 0.08 and 0.29 
 - which is quite a bit more - had 104.
More than the previous group, only slightly less than having none, and way more than having over 0.3.
What's going on there?
Something weird's going on with these men's sperm counts.
On top of that, looking at the results section of the paper,
the majority of men (72%) were defined as overweight or obese whether or not they ate *any* soy,
and, 10% had below 20 million sperm per milliliter,
which is less than the low bar for sperm the World Health Organization used to, up until the late 90s, consider a healthy sperm count.
Why is this?
Well, here's the part where I pull the chair out from under you.
It's because the men invited to the test were the male partners of subfertile couples.
Couples who for one reason or another, have been trying to produce a child but haven't been able to,
who had gone to the Massachusetts General Hospital for evaluation.
*All* the men in the study, whether or not they consumed soy, had already been having troubles achieving pregnancy.
That's how they *found* them.
[metal rubbing against chain]
[GRUNTS]
By the way, uh
the study's *name,*
mentions that it's men at an infertility clinic, right?
and
Neither Paul's video, nor the blog post he cites even mention that! And it's in its name!
This is not a straightforward test of an average population.
On top of that, how many men were actually tested, in this study?
Four thousand??
A thousand?
Five hundred?
Well, it was actually 99 men.
That's... really not big enough for the results of this study to be easily applicable to any human population.
If you're going to count studies with a questionably low sample size,
then, you might as well look at the study by Song Airtel in 2006,
which studied only *48* men, with a control group of 10, and found that plant phytoestrogen intake
was correlated with HIGHER sperm count, *and,* higher sperm DNA integrity.
But, 48 men - or even 99 men - isn't really enough for the results of either to suggest much of anything.
I hope it goes without saying, that a study of 99 men, who are already having fertility problems,
is not enough to come to a sweeping generalization about the effects of soy on sperm count -
- or testosterone for that matter.
And in case it doesn't go without saying,
The study concludes by saying it,
and I quote,
[SAW RUBBING AGAINST CONCRETE]
[GRUNTS, STRUGGLING]
[PANTS] Here we go...
[READS THE CONCLUDING SENTENCES]
THIS IS PAUL'S SOURCE!
This is the thing he uses to prove the things he believes!
and even *it* says,
fucking -
"***Don't*** come to a bullshit conclusion! We don't know enough about it!"
[SIGHS]
And yet...
It seems like Paul's audience,
lapped this up anyway.
Like milk, from the udders of the world's most disgusting kind of metaphorical cow,
the--
the LIE COW!
Here's another interesting thing I noticed:
Despite his attempt to demonstrate that soy lowers testosterone and sperm count, the BuzzFeed Try Guys,
Incidentally, did a video where they have their sperm tested.
All four Try Guys have a sperm concentration well over the normal count of 15 million sperm per milliliter, established by the World Health Organization,
with Keith having an, um... *atrociously* high count per milliliter despite having well below what Paul claims as normal testosterone.
And Ned, who had the lowest testosterone by far, had a total sperm count of
248.6 million, over 10 million sperm more than Eugene who had the highest testosterone of the group by far.
This is anecdotal evidence but that's really not much of a correlation between testosterone and sperm count, is it?
Unless of course, Paul means to tell me that Keith has well below
the average testosterone levels of an 85 to 100 year old man
While--...
Blasting! Sperm! Like he's Zeus, from Mount Olympus!
There's also a bit where he attempts to tie the
increased production of soy in the West, with the general reduction in testosterone around the same time.
[PJW:] "Obviously it's not the only factor but consider this,
in 1992 soy food sales in the US stood at 300 million a year.
They now stand at over. FOUR. BILLION.  dollars a year.
This has coincided with a substantial drop in men's testosterone levels in the US since the 80s."
[Hbomb] Hey, Paul? Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul... I'll give you this— I'll give you this one for free;
Google the word:
"coincidence."
Seriously, this is the best he has to offer
The only other major things he cites
are the guy I already showed you, and the nutritionist whose book's name that guy got wrong.
It's kind of ironic isn't it?
That Paul and his audience is [sic] blindly following Kayla Daniels on this,
given that the main source for her claims, is a story about a bunch of
FUCKING...
...SHEEP!
He even - and this is really interesting -
Cites as proof that men get man boobs because of soy, the *same* video
*I* found while I was doing research into this.
You know, the one that cites no credible evidence whatsoever?
[sarcastically] Weird that he'd make *that* his source for his claims!
What's even weirder though;
Is that since Paul's video came out,
the description of the video has been edited to read:
"NOTE: Paul Joseph Watson used an excerpt from this video in his popular video, 'The Truth About Soy Boys,'
Illegally without the permission of Dr. Kaayla Daniel. She finds his perspective offensive."
This is Paul Joseph Watson's bulletproof source:
a nutritionist with little to no scientific basis for their claims,
whose video Paul took without even bothering to ask,
to make his *personal,* ridiculous, right-wing view of the issue seem more credible.
A view the person he's claiming as a source-
*openly* says she finds offensive.
I hope Paul gets a fucking medal of how idiotic he's managed to be in this video,
it's almost mind-boggling how backwards he's managed to get scientific reality.
- [DISTANT GUNSHOTS]
- [PANTING]
[Exhausted] In conclusion, it may well be the case that soy is feminizing, and makes you really unfit,
and it isn't just caused by Paul's sedentary lifestyle or my love of Twizzlers.
But if it is the case that soy makes you into a-- y'know-- a no-testosterone, no-sperm baby-man,
then, the time to believe that...
is when there is evidence.
In the words of David Hume—
and this makes me smarter, because, you know, I can regurgitate a quote—
"The wise man,
proportions his belief...
to the evidence."
[SIGHS]
Which brings me to the real question here.
You know, it's not just that some people are wrong about the science of isoflavones or whatever.
The real question is,
why do Right Wing idiots keep sharing obvious lies in order to perpetuate the things they want to believe?
Why isn't the truth enough?
The book, "When Prophecy Fails," relates the findings of social psychologists
who studied a doomsday cult that believed the apocalypse was coming.
When the date of the end of the world came and went,
many of the cult remained committed to its beliefs anyway;
decided that the world had simply been spared, or the end had merely been delayed.
The psychologists found that when a group of people is utterly committed to an idea,
even if undeniable proof it is not true is presented to them,
they can find a way to remain steadfast in their initial, false beliefs.
The term, "cognitive dissonance," was invented by Leon Festinger,
the book's main author and lead psychologist, a year later.
The small, close-knit, definitely not cult-like corners of the Internet,
are *sure* they already know the truth about how the world works,
and appear to be hoping to piece together a justification for their beliefs
by aggregating enough buzzwords that it somehow proves they're right.
[PJW] "The only men who seriously watch BuzzFeed
are tofu-eating, male feminist, virtue signalling, beta orbiter..."
[Hbomb] They're virtue signalers,
they're cultural Marxists,
they're betas.
They must have low testosterone. They must be cucks.
They must have had too much of a bean,
that's been a staple in the diet of Asian countries for thousands of years.
[mockingly] "I don't need to talk about evidence for my beliefs, because everyone who isn't like me is all of these bad things."
"And that's why I'm right."
It's important to recognize that this isn't an external claim,
people don't wallpaper this all over their Facebook and Twitter feeds because they think it'll convince someone else to believe it.
That's not the point. It's an *internal* claim.
They're repeatedly talking to themselves,
because *they* want to believe it.
It's a mental diversion from the actual truth,
which is that other people have different ideas than them, because the evidence sometimes suggests their beliefs are wrong.
Without spreading ideas like that soy causes leftism,
these folks would have to come to terms with the possibility that people might have good reasons to think differently from them,
and admitting that would be too much.
That would mean maybe they're not correct.
Maybe their understanding of the world is incomplete.
It can be scary to truly consider you might not know something, and can be wrong.
This explains the prevalence of people like Paul, who help distract people from their fears of being wrong
by acting as figures of authority who can tell them, "No. Trust me.
I know what I'm talking about, and you're right already.
You don't need to do any more thinking. Everyone who's different from you
is a gender communist." [laughs]
If you happen to be a fan of Paul who managed to stick around to the end,
*thanks* for hearing me out all the way.
There's already undoubtably tons of comments about stopping partway through
because they can't stand the sound of my voice, or because I'm clearly a leftist shill soy boy.
You've outsmarted all of those people by actually listening to what someone else has to say,
and really having to think about the evidence.
It might be comfortable having a YouTuber affirming your ideas,
but the truth can't hurt you. In fact, it can set you free.
Having a greater understanding of the world can only ever be a good thing,
and being able to change your conclusions when presented with new evidence
is a far more important skill than happening to be right first time about something.
I've been wrong about plenty of things in one video. I claimed Tigers were from Africa
They actually only live in India in the wild and I foolishly half-remembered an anecdote that their common ancestor with lions and leopards
originated in Africa. *Everyone* is wrong some of the time, and that's okay
There'll always be people like Paul, who wants you to believe they can do your thinking for you
But maybe they're not right about that either.
You don't have to think I'm right, I *could* be wrong!
I could have come to the complete wrong conclusion about what this evidence suggests, but you can find it
It's out there, and it informs your perspective of everything, you know?
maybe some conservatives eat soy and that's fine. In fact, that is the case, I've looked it up!
And...
Y-you know...
Isn't it all nice?
Go to the evidence and maybe, together,
we can all live in a beautiful world - soy or not,
and...
Maybe we'll be gentler, and nicer that way.
[SIGHS]
and If you don't, well I'll- I'll own you on the Internet.
Thanks for watching my really dumb rant in the woods.
Here's some footage of me getting soysages thrown in my face.
♪♪
Okay, so it turns out that soy sausages are really hard to hit people with from a distance.
♫♫♫
- OFFSCREEN VOICE: I'm so sorry!
- HBOMB: Oh, my dick is wet with soy!
[LAUGHTER]
I think we only need that one take, to be honest! That was so much-
