The entire current discourse seems engineered to muddle the real issues by dragging cancel culture back into every conversation. Abdul El-Sayed just made a move that Asmongold immediately flagged as pure manipulation, labeling him a weasel for how he handled questions from Hasan on recent media appearances. The core argument here is that inviting a guest with controversial views while publicly disagreeing with them creates a contradiction that simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Asmongold predicts critics will now weaponize cancel culture against El-Sayed because opponents only claim to hate it when they know it works effectively. There is a specific scenario involving Mike Rogers and a hypothetical white supremacist guest used to illustrate the double standard in campaign strategy. If Mike Rogers had someone on board who was a white supremac*st and also said they wanted to close the borders, then went on record saying he disagreed with white supremacy but still brought them on for border policy reasons, the reaction would be completely different. People are being told not to listen to this as if it were principle, but rather as a tactic to use the language of those who disagree just to manipulate opinion and get away with actions that are now facing consequences. It feels like a game where you don't want cancel culture because you know it actually works, so hoping nobody buys into the narrative that El-Sayed is trying to sell seems like the only logical step. The prediction stands that the very tool he tries to avoid will be turned right back on him immediately.