*24.05.24 Mickey Mouth - Episode 1 of 100

Link to video:

v4w2vck-mykkie-mouth-episode-1-of-100.html

Script:

Welcome back to my channel. This video is going to be a doozy! 

Here is the scenario. The Filipina Pea had made a video about feminism in the Philippines. A channel called Myk's Philippine Journey made a reaction video and, to be blunt, just lied about what Pea said.

Myk claimed that Pea declared that Feminism DIDN'T EXIST in the Philippines. Myk lied. All of the following clips show Myk repeatedly making the same lie, that is, he was using the "Repetition Equals Truth" tactic.

"Didn't the Pea in the beginning of the video talked about how it messed up the western countries, but it sure doesn't exist in the Philippines. In her opinion, So it's not gonna exist".

"She makes a video about feminism. And say it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist?"

"And for you guys to think that doesn't exist".

"That that one woman who keeps on fucking talking about that feminism don't exist in the Philippines or ain't gonna take root. Oh, I'm sorry. Please don't don't don't talk about the Pea no more. No, I'm talking about the fucking issue that she says it doesn't exist".

That's seven times, but note the pathetic way Myk dealt with those who may point out Pea never said feminism didn’t exist there:

"And you bitch ass out there, be like, no, she didn't say that, she said this. At this point, bitch, please".

He didn't actually back up his claim, did he? But he hopes the way he says it will make you think there's no reason to doubt his claim.

It also wasn't just 7 times I can document him lying about this. I have more:

"They don't think it's gonna exist here? Because the Filipino pea said so."

"You're gonna believe a woman that says that feminism won't exist in the Philippines when it does."

"Feminism is not gonna take root. Feminism doesn't exist".

So that's a total of 10. Could be more. But I'm not done yet. Because Myk will lie about lying even after he got caught with video proof.

You see, Pea not only never said feminism didn't exist in the Philippines, she actually said it was "disorganized" there.

"Another reason feminism won't take hold here is because it's completely disorganized".

It is a basic logical truth that for something to be disorganized, it must first exist!

So when challenging Myk in the comment section about one of his other claims, I also included the fact that he lied about this one:

My comment pointed out that she never said Feminism doesn't exist there and I told him to get back to me when he apologized for that repeated lie he made.

Myk's response was rather unexpected because usually when trolls get caught blatantly lying, they try to ignore it in hopes people forget. 

But surprisingly, Myk responded with this comment, the key part being that he denies claiming that Pea said feminism doesn't exist in the Philippines:

"I did NOT say she said it does not exist... at least get that right."

Note that Myk directly declares that he did not accuse Pea of saying feminism doesn't exist and that I need to get that right. In spite of already providing the proof he was wrong - the same proof I showed a moment ago - Myk still claimed he never said it! In other words, he was lying about lying!

Then he lies yet again with another comment that says:

"See, now u putting word in my mouth that don't exist.. check the video again.. looks like u are the one lying and changing the words."

So he doubled down on his lie and accused me of changing his words! Which is another lie. Myk loves to say by using clips, I'm changing his context but doesn't show I actually changed anything. This is a very rare case where he tries, but fails badly since, you know, you just saw 10 examples of Myk saying exactly what I claimed he said and I didn't change any context.

Myk tries one more time, posting:

"So why would I apologize for something that is easily checked lol... do u want a time stamp on a video... cause I can prove that easily... how about this just for u, I'll rerelease the video.. so u can watch again and so others can see what I said".

Maybe he's just incapable of apologizing even when he is proven wrong by his own words! Must be a bad attempt to "save face"!

Meanwhile, do you see the logical flaws in his comment? Besides the fact he never provided a time stamp!

A time stamp wouldn't prove he did NOT say something. He can provide 100 time stamps and just not include the ones that prove I'm right!

There is also a problem with the offer to rerelease the video. First, why bother? Just refer to the original! Second, if the original was removed and he then re-uploads it, he can easily first edit out the parts that prove he is lying! Basically he's trying to make it look like he's offering proof, but he's really offering nothing.

There are many cases where Myk gets caught lying, being a hypocrite, changing people's context, using very poor logic, etc. It got so bad he could no longer laugh it off and so he resorted to censorship. Watch for that tactic again.

I don't know if Myk is aware of this channel, but if he is, other than trying to censor it, if he does try to make a rebuttal instead, keep all these lies I just documented in mind, especially how he was willing to lie even when the proof had already been provided. It should be pretty clear by now that even if he can make something sound convincing, it's unlikely to hold up to a serious examination.

If Myk responds but can't explain away these documented lies or apologize for, well, pretty much everything, then you know he is dodging the whole thing and hoping you don't notice.

But I have much more!

"Take it away, Ern. Yeah, take it away Earnie. It's gonna be a bumpy ride".

Myk needs to label people, whether it be calling them "simps", "weak men", etc. It's a tactic to get his supporters to write off any opposition in advance. In this case, he needs to label Pea as a modern feminist so let's look at how absurd that is:

"Her last video, that one, the one video she said she admitted she's a feminist. A feminist is a feminist. And for you bitches out there that says it's not true, She said it so".

"She says she's an old school feminist but a feminist is a feminist".

That's just stupid. There are different kinds of feminists and Myk, as you will see in a moment, knows it. But right now he ignores what he knows so he can make false attacks. 

"You cannot be an old school feminist Doesn't exist anymore".

Myk fails basic logic. If even one person believes in old school feminism, then it exists.

Pea's comment about being a feminist was based on three basic things: The right to vote, work, and drive. That's pretty old school!

Now we get more fun from Myk, showing that he doesn't say things because he believes them, but just says whatever helps him to attack at that moment. How else to explain this from Myk:

"So here's the thing, guys. There's different waves of feminism depending on types, that I can tolerate with certain things. Right? If it's talked about equal, you know, right to vote, right to be able to, you know, get a job, right to be able to drive, I believe in that. That's like the first wave feminism stuff".

Wow, suddenly he recognizes different kinds of feminism and even agrees with some, which means they still exist! What happened to this?:

"A feminist is a feminist".

Especially note he's in favor of the right for women to vote, work and drive. I wonder where I heard that before? Maybe here:

"Name one thing a woman already doesn't have the right to do, to vote, work, and drive?"

Trolls like Myk tend to make up attacks out of the blue, but then can't keep track of what they said before. Thus their own words come back to bite them in the butt.

Not only do we have the self-contradictory statements from Myk showing he is just making stuff up, we have a lot of statements from Pea showing she is strongly opposed to modern feminism. She isn't just critical, she destroys the favorite talking points of feminists and even challenges their basic motives. Let's look at some:

"All they're accomplishing now is to perpetuate a gender war with no winners, harming the family unit and tearing at the very fabric of society".

"The purpose of the women's rights movement was achieved a long time ago".

"Or is it just a slogan that's been hijacked, a false banner, flying over a much more insidious philosophy?"

"Name one thing a woman already doesn't have the right to do".

"The pay gap was proven to be bogus."

"So what is it they really want? Power, my friends. Domestic, political, and economic. And you know it".

"Demanding that women make up half the government or any other field, it's ridiculous".

"There are actually differences in men and women, that make the sexes better at different tasks. Women might not hold half of the elected positions, but the system is still perfectly fair if they want to run. Equality of opportunity is the goal. Not equality of outcome".

"I'm perfectly capable of looking at gender issues from both sides in a logical way and calling modern feminism what it is: An idea whose time has passed".

No modern feminist would say all those things!

From what I've included in this video so far, you should be able to see why Myk eventually figured out he better censor me rather than defend his statements. But I'm not done!

Let's look at his changing standards for "fair use". This was said soon after I started reacting to his videos and before he realized how effective I was going to be:

"It's another channel that had like over nine videos just about me, which is amazing. Alright? I was like, Yo, that's fine. Fair use. And it's all about me, him trying to prove me wrong against the Pea and that's perfectly fine. I appreciate that".

"There's channels out there trying to expose me. I'm good. Please do. Please use my channel. Please use my videos. I ain't gonna strike somebody for, you know, using my videos. It's fair use. And so, that's the fun part. But one thing you guys do know is when we review people's videos here, we play their videos. We don't use 10 second, 5 second clips."

As you can see, he plainly had no concerns about me using his videos and, while he says he prefers people use his whole video, he still said what I was doing was "fair use" and he wouldn't make strikes. 

But he did lie about using full videos himself but more on that in a moment.

First, let's also show another of his clips on fair use when he was reacting to a video by The Filipina Pea and justifying using her material:

"This is the fair use description. This video may contain copyrighted material; the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for the purposes of criticism & comment. And for you idiots out there who says, 'Oh, you're just chasing', uh, excuse me, this is YouTube, this is allowed. This whole thing, where reaction videos, is allowed in YouTube."

Well, isn't that exactly what I did before and what I'm still doing with this video? Yet it seems Myk just had to make strikes to censor me on YouTube once he realized I was effective. Just like I said trolls do. And by doing so, Myk violated his own standards and what he admitted YouTube allows. Keep this basic point in mind - Myk's standards change a lot. Which means they aren't really standards, but just self-serving flip-flops.

Before you say that Myk is using full videos, don't confuse his rhetoric with reality. That last clip comes from a video called:

"Filipina Pea Just Exposed Simp Foreigners"

Yes, Myk had already said he uses full videos. But Myk flat out lied. It's one of those technicalities, I guess. He only sometimes uses full videos. Another of his "standards" that really aren't standards! 

And Myk knows editing is necessary. Just listen to him:

"When we see a video, whether who the creator is, we have to understand that their not going to be able to use the full amount of the video to be able to fully explain everything, okay? Happens to me all the time".

Yet Myk keeps saying that by not using his whole video, I'm changing his context.

He's fine with massive editing himself. Like in that video, he was reacting to a 29 minute 20 second video from the Filipina Pea. Yet Myk only used 97 seconds of her video. And he talked over that a fair amount of the time! I think the term "hypocrite" fits well. There are plenty of other videos he heavily edited too. Because using full videos really isn't his standard. It's just a "sometime" thing.

That's just one more example of Myk getting caught, thus why he had to resort to censorship since I kept pointing them out.

Let me make one more point about Myk's nonsense when he changed his standard to say I had to use his full video. Those clips about his standards came from two live streams which lasted a total of 5 and a half hours! When making a reaction to that particular issue in his videos, why on earth would I include 5 and a half hours of stuff that is in no way related to the subject?

You might also wonder why I let Myk get away with bogus strikes on YouTube when I could have easily make a counter strike.

Well, unethical trolls tend to be unethical in other ways as well. Unfortunately, a troll can make a bogus copyright strike and I'll be sent the name of their channel as well as an email address.

However, the same isn't true when I make a counter notification. The troll would get my real name, home address, phone number, and email address. Imagine the harassment they could create with that information. And it would be very hard to prove they were responsible.

Myk knew this and made it a point to be sure I knew it in this post in the comment section:

"And what's amazing is once you get the strikes .. you have to give your full name and your location.. so we can all be seen"

Which I take as a threat. Sort of like when the Mafia goes to a small business owner and says, "Nice business you have here. Be a shame if something happened to it". 

You know it's a threat, but you can't prove anything.

Of course, with Myk's record, I wouldn't trust him with that info anyway. At some point I may fight back. Meanwhile, I'll just keep collecting his double standards, lies, etc, in case I do decide on legal action. Personally, even when dealing with unethical people, I don't want to shut them up. I'd prefer they just behave like decent human beings but, if they don't, I just point it out.

Oh, let's add this clip:

"I'm not calling for canceling people, I'm just not. That's just not me, right?. Because I don't believe in cancel culture".

Apparently he does believe in it if someone makes him look bad often enough!

For the record, if anyone wants to use any of my videos - clips or the whole thing - that's fine as long as you don't present it as your own work, since that would be unethical. If I ever change my mind, I'll say when and the change would only apply to my videos created after that point. Unlike Myk, I don't move the goalposts unfairly.

Let's look at a lot more weird stuff from Myk.

In a video about Rubeauti, who is another successful Filipina vlogger, Myk actually complains about her doing an ad for Christian Filipina. Let's look at the start of the ad:

"Have you even considered the Philippines to find your life Partner - Pay attention to the person there - Filipina dot com to see what you have been missing".

And then we get this weird reaction:

"A lot of you guys are familiar with the girl that's being paid to speak her mind, to share with you guys. One thing a lot of guys don't understand is if you listen to what she's saying, she's using the same wordings that used by the other girls". 

Nope, that's not how it works. Rubeauti, like almost every person hired by a company for advertising, is paid to read the script they are given. They are not paid to "speak their minds". The person may be hired for any number of reasons, but the pay is for saying exactly what the company wants said. And there is nothing wrong with that. The same is done in the West. This is literally a non-issue!

Likewise it is common to hear the same ads in the west on different shows by different people saying the same thing. They are all usually following a script approved by the company.

But let's continue. Rubeauti talks about a tradition in the Philippines that foreign boyfriends, when they go to their girlfriend's hometown to meet her family, are expected to throw a big party for the whole extended family and their friends.

"If it's the first time that you are going to meet your girlfriend's family, then I just remembered what my mom told me the other -"

"What her mom told her. See, this is not tradition. She's gonna say you know, traditional stuff. It's not tradition. This is something that is taught to her by her mother".

Now, I'm not going to get into the argument as to whether it is a tradition or not since it is another vague term, nor whether it is good or not. Maybe some other time. But this video is about the absolute nonsense Myk says. There are two things in that clip that are critical.

First is Myk's really absurd argument that since it was told to Rubeauti by her mother, it isn't tradition! How the heck does Myk think traditions get passed on? Is there a sari-sari store which sells them? Of course not. Traditions are most commonly passed on through family, as well as local communities, etc. In other words, being told by her mother is a perfectly normal way to pass on traditions! Myk may not like the tradition, or may claim it really isn't a tradition, but this argument of his is just silly.

Also, Rubeauti specifically gave the context that it was about when you FIRST MEET HER FAMILY. But look at how Myk, in spite of including Rubeauti's full statement, still changed her context, something he does a lot:

"See, you know for a fact that when you date a person, you don't meet their parents right away. It shouldn't be that way."

First, as I said, Rubeauti was talking about when you first meet the parents. She didn't say you meet them right away. Maybe Myk shouldn't make assumptions which essentially alter Rubeauti's context.

Second, Myk is talking to mostly westerners and saying "You know" you don't meet the parents right away. But what happens in the west doesn't tell you what is done in the Philippines. They are different cultures. Whether it should or shouldn't "be that way" is a separate issue.

If you don't want to do some things when visiting another culture, fine. In fact, Rubeauti later says that you can just explain your view to your Filipina girlfriend and she'll understand. It's about communication when cultures differ. Or even when individuals differ, tradition or not.

Before making another point about this, let's listen to this statement by Myk:

"And a lot of the guys who are watching these videos of her's have the blinders on because, "Oh my god, she looks so fucking good man. Getting a, you're getting a Filipina boner. And you're not listening to what she is saying".

So, you should really LISTEN to what is being said. Well, it is interesting that Myk finally realizes the importance of words instead of saying they are only 7% of communication! But how well did HE listen when he missed her statement that this was about when you first meet the family, NOT when you first meet your girlfriend? Sure, it could sometimes be both, but Myk, as is his practice, assumes just one and always the worst one from his point of view.

Situations about first meeting the girlfriend are a different issue, but not the one Rubeauti is describing in this section.

Let's see if we can find more examples of Myk not listening! I bet we can!

"You're gonna say, yo, listen, listen. I did listen to the Pea, she did say I had to do that. girlfriend alimony".

That's either Myk not listening again or Myk flat out lying.

Because The Filipina Pea never said you should pay "girlfriend alimony". Alimony is a legal obligation, but in the video Myk is referring to Pea didn't say anything other than point out things to think about when in a serious, long-term relationship with a Filipina, be it marriage or not. So Myk changed the context again.

By the way, when I pointed this out to Myk before, his defense was that when a woman tells you to think about something, she really means you better do it! Isn't that convenient? Just as with playing the body language card lets unethical people ignore what is actually said, in this case, he doesn't even have to bother with body language. Just make a self-serving claim about what women do and apply it when it suits his agenda.

Let's switch to Myk's hypocrisy as he reacts to Rubeauti making a perfectly logical - and harmless - assumption.

"I saw that big families in the park with one foreigner with them. So I assume that foreigner -"

"Assumption is the mother of all "F"-ups -"

"is in a relationship with one of the women in that family".

I bet most of Myk's supporters thought he nailed Rubeauti about making assumptions. But let's go go back and this time I'll include what Myk said when he interrupted her description and before she said she was making an assumption:

"I saw that big families in the park with one foreigner with them - Big family's in the park with one foreigner. Another foreigner con".

Wow, Myk essentially made the same ASSUMPTION first! There are differences. Myk's assumption is derogatory to others. It's his thing. And he also wasn't an actual witness like Rubeauti was, so he has less to base his assumption on. But Myk turns out to have gotten something right - making HIS assumption did "f" him up!

Myk has more logic issues:

"So if it's just like that, going to the park, it's not very expensive, I believe - It's not that expensive, I believe. She doesn't even know".

Of course she doesn't know. Every situation will be different. How many people? What food is served? She does give an estimate for this kind of party though:

"It's just throwing a big party at home in the girl's hometown then I think that is fine.

You will probably spend 5,000 pesos or like around one hundred dollars."

"She doesn't even know. See, this is the thing, women don't know. You think?"

Does Myk expect absolute numbers when there are so many variables possible? An estimate is the best anyone can reasonably do. Myk is nuts!

Now see how Myk listens really badly again:

"Going to a resort is only going to cost one hundred dollars? You're gonna spend a hundred dollars. Let's say even a $100 dollars. Guys, most men that go on a date in the US is not even going to spend 100 dollars on a first date.

Go back to the prior clip and Rubeauti plainly says the $100 estimate is for a party in the girlfriend's hometown, not a resort! Unplug your ears, Myk!

Myk also screwed up yet again with his comparison to a first date in the west, saying you wouldn't spend $100 on a first date. But Rubeauti, as already pointed out, is talking about when you first go meet the family in their hometown, not the first date!

And Myk fails to catch his mistake even when Rubeauti does talk about a resort outing:

"You are going out, want to go to a resort with the whole family or the hotel or restaurant then maybe you will spend around 500 dollars".

At no point does Myk realize he completely reversed her context! Myk loves to say that, by using clips, I change his context - but he fails to actually show that the context is changed! Meanwhile, I can - as demonstrated in these clips - show that Myk can include the context BUT STILL CHANGE IT! No wonder he needed to censor my channel!

Myk screws up so much stuff that it would be wrong to say he "reads between the lines". He WRITES between the lines!

This next part builds off my prior video about the weaponization of body language, Last week I said the next video would provide an example so here it is.

First, let's just establish that Myk did, in fact, promote the idea that words are only 7% of communication:

"Communication is only 7% words".

Sure sounds confident, yet at no time does he actually back up his claim. But you see in my last video, I did. Probably because I actually could do it! Maybe I have an unfair advantage!

Now look at how he weaponizes it. This has to do with the VISA extension rules in the Philippines when they finally reopened after Covid. Many people thought a new resolution said that tourists could only stay for 30 days instead of being able to extend longer like they could before covid.

But Pea and her visa expert explained that the visa extension rule for tourists had not changed and explained why. And she managed to give her view without attacking anyone else. Myk can't do that.

So, Myk uses the body language trick to essentially say the visa expert is being less than truthful:

"Alright, right there. That right there is a person that's about to say something that he fully doesn't truly believe in".

You see how Myk uses body language to write off what the visa expert says?

Well, since I focus on words, let's see whose approach works better. First, a short summary of what Pea and her visa expert said:

"So, JR, in short, the newest resolution has nothing to do with foreigners who are coming here for purely tourism. Is that correct? Yes. According to the resolution."

Now let's see Myk's conclusions, which he repeats over and over. Remember the "repetition equals truth" tactic!:

"What it pretty much means is that, yes, you can come in, but you can't really stay that long."

"You can't stay past 30 days".

"You guys gonna have to go back home, because they're not gonna let you extend past those 30 days".

"That the Visa free countries, so like the United States and certain other countries coming to the Philippines is limited, limited to 30 days".

"But you cannot stay past 30 days".

"They are only limited to staying up to 30 days".

So, the visa expert said the law, at that point, still allowed extensions and Myk repeatedly said you could not extend past 30 days. Both can't be true.

It would have been fine if Myk just suggested people wait in case the rules were changed in the near future. That could be good advice. But Myk can't control himself. So we got body language crap like this to let him ignore what an expert says:

"Just because you have a visa expert there, even he doesn't believe in what he's saying".

Now for the real test. Who was correct - the visa expert or Myk? Well, while there was some confusion during those early days, the law was never changed and people got to make their extensions as before.

The world is still waiting for Myk to apologize. He has, after all, repeatedly said he both welcomes criticism and can admit when he is wrong. I say actions speak louder than words.

In the same video, we have yet another example of Myk being a hypocrite. Listen to his reaction to the visa expert pointing out that the information he is passing on is from "them" - that is, the visa expert's contacts in the department of immigration:

"For tourists, under 408, They can still extend their visa, right?"

"According to them".

"Okay".

"According to them".

"What he's doing there is, hey, it's according to them, right now. Why? Because he doesn't want the blame towards him".

Really? Is it about avoiding blame? Or is it about just letting people know the ultimate source of the information the visa expert is providing? Does Myk want the expert to make up his own stuff? Of course he gets it from "them".

Since Myk wants to play this game, well, let's play. Here are some things Myk has said when talking about the source for his claims. Be sure to apply Myk's own "standard" to his words about his government source:

"I'm just share, I shared with you guys in the previous video what she said in translated for you".

"I just shared what the lady said".

"I'm just Translating. The video I made was translation".

Is saying, "I'm just sharing" what someone said or "I'm just translating" their words actually an excuse to protect Myk if he is wrong? Sure sounds the same to me! So if the visa expert was trying to avoid blame in case he was wrong, then so was Myk.

But since it turned out the visa expert was correct and Myk was wrong, I guess Myk is the one who really needed to use that trick!

Believe it or not, I have even more!

In another of Pea's videos, she talked about the tradition of "saving face" in the Philippines. In it, she also pointed out the problem that in the effort to "save face", some Filipinos will lie.

This shouldn't be a surprise. After all, whether saving face is a good thing or not, some people will lie in an attempt to keep it when they get embarrassed. Sort of like how Myk, even with videos proving he falsely accused Pea of saying feminism doesn't exist in the Philippines, lied again by saying he didn't make that accusation!

Also, Myk falsely presented Pea's view as saying "lying" was a Philippine tradition and that "saving face" excused lying! How absurd.

Let's look at what Pea actually said:

"Saving face is not the same thing as lying but that's what it often leads to".

Well, that seems pretty clear to me, but then, I listen and I know words are way more than 7% of communication! So, Pea did NOT treat lying and saving face as the same thing. She did point out how there are people who will make bad choices by lying. 

But what about Myk's claim that Pea said that saving face "justifies" lying? Well, we can actually listen to what Pea said about that too:

"That’s exactly what I mean when I say the concept of saving face often gives people an excuse to lie and tell themselves it was justified. A lot of that goes on here and it’s not OK".

Hmmm, not only no "justifying", but saying it wasn't okay! I don't think Myk cares about truth much at all!

Myk gets some filipinos to agree with him that saving face doesn't exist, but it is a meaningless agreement since he presents it in a false way - repeating his dishonest claim that Pea said it excuses lying or that it is lying that is cultural or tradition. Don't believe me? Well, listen for yourself:

"So the people that says that lying is a cultural thing". 

"If a person is saying lying is a cultural thing to prove that it's okay to lie".

Nope. Saving face is the cultural thing and it was clearly said that saving face and lying are NOT the same thing. And Pea said it did NOT justify lying!

But Myk really screwed up in a live stream with Jimbo360, who grew up in the Philippines and, I believe, is of Korean ancestry. Since saving face certainly exists in Korea - Myk said so - and since Jimbo spent far more time in the Philippines than Myk did, I'd say Jimbo's view is more valuable.

So Myk tried to get Jimbo's agreement but Myk forgot to make his usual false description. In other words, he failed to rig the question in advance. Thus we got a legitimate opinion from Jimbo without being influenced by Myk's lie. Let's watch:

"For The Filipina Pea Pea talking about this, you know, saving face"

"Saving face?"

"Yeah, have you ever heard of saving face in the Philippines?"

"Oh yeah, it's very important". 

That's a big "oops", Myk.

Let's compare how he reacted to Jimbo saying it was "very important" to how he reacted to Pea. First what he said about Pea:

"Lying to men about a particular thing that exists, she says, in the Philippines that men should be aware of and to be honest guys, she's lying about it".

"Filipina Pea is lying saying that it's cultural in the Philippines".

You have to admit, it is comical to hear Myk say, "To be honest, guys" even as he is lying about what Pea said!

So, for stating that "saving face" exists in the Philippines, Myk says Pea is LYING. Not just saying he has a different opinion and making a case for it. No, he makes a serious attack on her ethics.

Surely he'll now call Jimbo a liar. After all, Jimbo not only said saving face exists in the Philippines, but he said it was "very important".

Except Myk doesn't do that. Instead he, too late, tries to rig the issue again:

"But her definition of saving face is this is the reason why Filipino would Philippines lie to you".

Uh, that's not a definition. She gave an actual definition for saving face. But this part is just about how some Filipinos will, unfortunately, lie to save face. It's a human weakness and, once again, I'll soon show Myk knows this.

Now watch as Jimbo says they will lie to avoid being embarrassed.

"This is based on experience, a lot of time, you know, because they don't want to be embarrassed they will lie to you, that's a fact".

Myk not only doesn't call him a liar, but agrees with Jimbo.

But Myk continues with this:

"Yeah, but I think we can at least agree that that's a basic human nature when you’re trapped in the corner, you’re gonna lie to try to get yourself out, but it’s not really a culture of lying to save face. The way it is, it was like it was delivered as it’s a culture the Philippines that Filipinos will lie".

Well, except that was NOT how it was delivered. Pea specifically separated the two as I documented earlier. But notice that Myk just confirmed he knows it's a human weakness.

Now watch Jimbo's response to what Myk just said:

"When you say culture now, I’m trying to think again. This is a culture, uh, I'd say 50%. It's a lot of people will lie. How many times I caught people lying when I was still in the Philippines".

Wow, Jimbo actually did say it was 50% culture. Pea didn't go that far! Yet Myk doesn't attack Jimbo!

Next we have another example of Myk being unable to keep track of what he said before.

Listen to what Myk says about the language:

"If this such thing as saving face in the Philippines truly exists, then wouldn’t there be a specific Tagalog word, definition, that is used for that, not in English? Guess that, guys, there's not. When there's no words that exist for saving face in the Philippines. How can she explain that?"

Well, maybe she listens to Myk, like when he says this to Jimbo:

"Saving face is, you know, 'hiya'.

Oh, so there is a word for saving face after all. Myk needs some serious A.I. to keep track of his contradictory statements! Because his built-in intelligence just isn't getting the job done!

Let's look at Myk on giving respect. Ought to be good for a laugh.

Amazingly, Myk says he gives respect when people respect him. Really? He does SAY it:

"Apparently there’s men out there who grew up, became 60 years of age, who have no clue how to do constructive criticism or how to start an argument respectfully. If you give respect, I give respect".

Compare his talk with his actions.

First we have a woman named Abby and she has really good credentials for the issue of saving face, being a 48 year old Filipina who also lived in Japan for 14 years - a country where Myk says saving face exists.

And she, with far more years of full time experience in both countries, says saving face exists in the Philippines as well!

Here's what she wrote - and I'm well aware that I'll probably pronounce Tagalog words wrong:

"As much as you have your own valid points about Filipino Culture, and I appreciate your intention to clarify misinformation if you felt like it deems fit. But to be fair to Filipina Pea, I don't think she is lying about SAVING FACE being a Filipino Culture. I do not know her personally. I do not even follow her, although I have seen some of her contents. But I am commenting without any biases on you nor on her."

"As a 48 year old Filipina myself, who has lived in Japan for 14 years I could attest that "SAVING FACE" is a thing in my country and in Japan as well."

"And there is a FILIPINO TERM FOR IT. And that is "KAHIHIYAN" It basically meant having a SENSE OF SHAME".

No insults. Just polite, respectful, disagreement.

So surely Myk will respond in a similar tone, right? Of course not! Follow along:

"Shame and saving face are two different things... This is the problem of Filipinos who believe this.. sign of low class Filipino thinking.. true Filipinos will not agree because for one to avoid shame is to tell the truth and do good to others"

As you can see, Myk automatically is labeling Abby and any other Filipinos who disagree with him as low class.

Next you'll see Myk flat out lie about what Abby said.

"No no no.. don't u dare say it's okay to lie for Filipinos... that goes against all the values thought by Filipinos... looks like u picked up a lot of that in Japan... so if u believe it's okay to lie to save face.. then sorry U are low class and that shows that maybe ur parents did not...

"One thing we know is you are willing to lie to not feel shamed... well maybe that's what u learned from the tradition your parents handed down to u.. but let's be honest without lying that's your upbringing and tradition".

Excuse me, but exactly when did Abby say it was okay to lie? But Myk sure lied! I think Myk is pretty darn disrespectful when people don't agree with his pet claims. And he'll happily trash Filipinos. Is that why he didn't attack Jimbo when he disagreed with what Myk said, because Jimbo isn't a Filipino?

And here Myk again trashes Filipinos instantly when someone else refers to Filipinos he knows who don't agree with Myk on this issue:

"No, I have friends that are Filipinos. I told you that".

"Well maybe they are a bunch of low class bitches". 

"You’re telling me that a 70 year old man that goes to my church is a bitch?"

"Well maybe he's low class and doesn't know his whole culture".

Well, one thing about Myk, he isn't subtle about being disrespectful as soon as someone disagrees with his pet issues.

One more rather important item on this whole question of whether saving face exists in the Philippines. After extensive research, I found a video from someone even Myk must accept as authoritative who says saving face is "very important" in the Philippines:

"As typically seen with the rest of Asia, the concept of saving face is very important to filipinos".

Do you recognize the voice? Yep, it is Myk, saying saving face is very important.

After I posted that in my reaction video, even though Myk was making comments about other parts of the video, he was silent for some time about this actual clip. Trolls do that a lot. If something makes them look really bad, they respond to anything EXCEPT that really embarrassing part, hoping people don't notice.

But as I usually do, I just kept bringing it up, essentially challenging him on why he wasn't addressing such an obvious case of hypocrisy.

It took him two weeks, but he was finally pressured into responding to it. And it's pathetic!

He declared that he had learned better since he put up that video and now he knows saving face doesn't exist. He also pointed out that it was only about the 5th video he made, as if it is ancient history. And he added that it's a good thing to learn more. Do you believe that excuse? I don't, and here's why:

First, I could never find anything prior to his attack on Pea where he showed he changed his mind. So his timing is highly suspect.

Second, he lied about when the video was made. It wasn't his 5th video. It was his 95th! Pretty big error!

Third, the video was made in 2021, after almost all of his claimed experience in the Philippines. Yet suddenly he went from saying it is "very important" to saying it doesn't even exist???

Fourth, it took him 2 weeks to come up with that excuse, even though he was responding to other things from my same video. Think about that. If you believed something so strongly a couple years ago that you described it as "very important" and later realized you were wrong, would it take you TWO WEEKS if someone brings up your past viewpoint to make this correction? Of course not. You'd pretty much immediately say something like, "Oh, I used to think that, but I found out I was wrong". You wouldn't ignore the question for two weeks trying to come up with that excuse. Especially when you are repeatedly being challenged about it.

I want you to keep another thing in mind from all I showed in this entire video. You see, Myk likes to make meaningless comments about how I haven't been to the Philippines so how can I say all these things? But did you notice that almost everything I say does not need me to actually visit there? I mean, if Pea or Rubeauti say something and then Myk misrepresents what they said, I don't need to go to the Philippines to prove Myk lied! He just hopes you aren't paying attention and accept that nonsense and not listen to the facts I present. He can't deal with what I document. Well, other than to censor me.

Just one more subject. Oh, I can go on, but I did label this as Episode 1 out of 100. If I make all my videos about Myk's lies, hypocrisy, and so forth contain this many examples, I may only be able to make 99 episodes!

Myk says he only deletes comments for two reasons:

"The only time I erase comments is if a person is being racist, you know, or if the person is just straight out, you know, being, um, straight up a pig to women, okay?"

That's actually a lie too since I've seen him delete posts that were neither. If an exchange of comments makes him look bad, they'll suddenly disappear. But that isn't my focus at the moment. Rather it is to show him having no problem being a pig to women! You already saw how he responded to Abby.

Let's look at some other examples. This is Myk talking about the wife of Paul, Old Dog New Tricks:

"Paul sees something in them".

That's fine, hopefully every married couple see what they want in their spouse. But Myk just has to be a pig to a woman who hasn't done anything to him. So let's continue:

"Maybe it's because he sells used cars and he was hoping to get a fixer-upper. Alright?

"All it is is you have a used car salesman, hiring, you know, finding somebody of a used car or junk car pretty much, and maybe, hopefully, pair that with other junk cars that you can sell. That's all it is. There ... part for that."

Note two things, besides the obvious junior high level scumbag remarks. First, he finds it funny to ridicule a woman for no reason. Second, he declares his comparison of her to a junk used car is really all it is. Which is stupid. Myk is just a pig to women for no reason.

Even if we were to all agree that someone is not attractive, since when does that make it okay to go around making such statements in public? People are born with certain characteristics that they have no control over. And some other characteristics can come from their economic situation where they don't get proper health care. Laughing at someone else's expense like Myk does is inexcusable. To be consistent, Myk would have to approve of laughing at kids who lost their hair due to cancer.

"I just don't think she's a good looking woman". 

It doesn't matter that he thinks. He can think anything he wants. But instead he goes out of his way to be publicly cruel. Which is pretty much the definition of being a pig to women.

"I think Baby Mae is the bottom of the barrel woman. It's not my fault. She's a brown-bagger".

From what I've found out about Baby Mae, she is a nice, hard working woman who lived in poverty while caring for her family - and being unwilling to have Paul give her even small amounts of money to get take a trike home. But Myk doesn't seem to care about anything but physical appearance. Somebody needs to tell him that tends to not last.

"There's nothing wrong saying that".

Except there is everything wrong with saying that. It's interesting that Myk objects to how things have changed because of modern feminism, but men have changed too. No real man, when I was growing up, would ever go around saying stuff like that in public.

"There's plenty more people out there that will agree that Baby Mae is a brown-bagger".

So there are people besides Myk who will act as despicably as he does. I know that. They are on his channel. But since when does "little Johnny does it too" ever been an excuse for low class behavior?

In one of Myk's videos, he talked about when he was 17 or 18 and saw a woman pushing an old man in a wheelchair, but not watching where she was going. As a result, the man ended up falling into a hole. Myk admitted he laughed, but also said it was just because he was young - but now he wouldn't act that way.

I don't believe him. Over and over again we see him still acting the same way.

Myk likes to rate The Filipina Pea very low as well. I've seen him insist she is just a "1", or a "1 and a half", whatever. Meanwhile, he rates himself as a 4 or 5.

I don't care how he rates himself. Each person is free to rate themselves publicly or privately. But just because he doesn't care about being publicly rated by others, doesn't mean he is justified in PUBLICLY rating others negatively.

Don't be like Myk.

Thanks for watching and don't let the trolls stop you from speaking out.