'Libs of TikTok' Meets Crybaby Doxxer Taylor Lorenz, and Utterly Destroys Her

P. Gardner Goldsmith | February 25, 2024
Text Audio
00:00 00:00
Font Size

After being doxed and targeted by leftist Washington Post writer Taylor Lorenz, conservative Libs of TikTok founder and operator Chaya Raichik Saturday got an opportunity to “sit down” with her gaslighting attacker for a recorded chat, and with logical, admirable, confident ease, shredded the flimsy tapestry of ignorance, lies, deflections, and self-deception Lorenz and her current publishers (she previously worked for the New York Times) have employed – and seem intent on using as long as they publish – to feed Americans false narratives and to smear those who tell the truth about leftism.

In a five-and-a-half-minute segment posted to X, one sees the glorious hallmarks of a smart, prepared woman (Raichik) who confidently, calmly, and unrelentingly presses the squirming, all-over-the-map Lorenz as the latter tries to reframe, redefine, deflect, claim ignorance, and, eventually, wash her hands of culpability in the matter of whether sexually graphic material should be aimed at children in public schools.

This would be material that Raichik exposes (along with other collectivist agendas) mostly by posting on X the leftist material she finds on TikTok.

And, even before one gets far into the video exchange, one might smile, because the opening visuals are glorious. Lorenz hides behind a silly “pretend it’s useful” cloth mask, while Raichik wears a T-shirt emblazoned with a picture of Lorenz crying crocodile tears during one of her infamous interviews.

Brutally appropriate. And then the dissection begins, as Raichik asks:

“Do you think we should give kids porn in schools, the images of, like gay sex?”

Immediately, Lorenz deflects, reframing the question so that she doesn’t actually have to answer it.

“I, so, I… again, I went to public school, and in public school, at least when I was growing up, we were absolutely given, um, explicit literature, you know, explaining sex, educating people…”

Raichik clearly sees the attempt to dodge:

“Did it have pictures, of, like anal sex?”

And Lorenz at first jumps into the pool, claiming:

“Oh, absolutely. And it actually talked about condom use…”

“What grades?” asks Raichik.

“God. I mean, I don’t remember, but certainly, probably middle-school, I think that’s when we had sex-ed? Um—”

Raichik, detecting guarded falsity behind the opaque claims, drills further, mentioning two gay-centric sex-ed books she has found on school lists and asking if those should be given to kids in school.

Yet -- despite Lorenz criticizing Raichik for sounding online alarms about this type of material -- when it comes to those specific titles, Lorenz admits she hasn’t looked at them, but – as a deflective tactic -- she tries broadly to imply that sexual predation can be caused by a lack of what she seems to think is valuable sex-ed in tax-funded schools.

To find out more about the kind of sex-ed Lorenz likes, Raichik follows-up:

“So, we should give kids, um, pictures of gay sex in middle-school, and, actually, in elementary school…”

These are specific, easy to grasp questions.

But Lorenz – again, this is the woman who scours Raichik’s X feed and criticizes her for simply reposting on X what leftists are doing on TikTok – claims ignorance, saying:

“I guess I’m wondering what you consider that, I—”

Raichik already has posted this information – and one might expect that Lorenz would be able to figure this out – and it is at this point that the Libs of TikTok creator begins to press the logic and evidence buttons harder and faster.

“You wanna see a picture?” she asks.

“Well I, don’t know, but I mean… are you talking about the one’s that you’ve posted on your Twitter account—”


The net is dropping, and already revealing Lorenz as a person who claims ignorance of things about which, online, she already has criticized Raichik.

“I-- I guess those don’t look like what I received when I did sex-ed?”

Viewers will notice the nervous Lorenz Up-Talk™ and faster delivery begins in earnest, as Raichik reaches for her phone, because, clearly, Lorenz is getting a sense that she’s backed herself into a corner, a corner that will be revealed when Raichik shows her the images.

“But I think sex-ed is important because—” she tries to minimize what’s coming.

“So, you didn’t have these types of things when you were in school,” says Raichik, like a dauntless court prosecutor exposing a lie.

Then, the childishness and feigned ignorance comes out.

“Oh, no, we had sex-ed,” says Lorenz, which is a deflection-through-generalization and a likely preparatory for a claim of “misunderstanding” on her part when she is shown the pics she already should have seen, given how much she criticizes Raichik about her Libs of TikTok “intolerance” of LGBTQ+ people and agendas.

“When you had sex-ed in school, did you not get books with, with graphic images—?” tries Lorenz.

Raichik keeps things on track.

“With pictures of gay sex?”

Lorenz again tries to deflect and claim that she “certainly learned about gay sex in school,” but Raichik presses her point about actual images, visual depictions of gay sex.

Related: Mass Media Layoffs Highlight the 'Get Woke, Go Broke' Phenomenon

In fact Raichik gets Lorenz to admit she kept referencing the pictures, yet Lorenz is claiming ignorance, and Raichik just happens to have her phone with her, so, why not correct any claimed “misunderstanding” on the part of Lorenz, and show her what she already has been referencing when attacking Raichik. In other words, why not get Lorenz to defend, in person, what she seems so tirelessly willing to do online as she attacks Libs of TikTok for, somehow, being anti-LGBTQ?

When Lorenz says she doesn’t know the context of the images, Raichik observes:

“Oh, so we could give kids, like, pictures of gay sex as long as it’s in the proper context?”

And that brings Lorenz to her last attempt at defense, the classic Aristotelean fallacy of the “appeal to authority” as she claims:

“I—I don’t know. I mean, it’s up to the educator to determine.”

Which not only deflects and acts as an insulator to protect her from criticism, it assumes that the political-collective is the answer, that the political collective as expressed through the policy of the collective-preferred “expert” knows better and has more moral authority than PARENTS.

When she sees the images from a book called “Gender Queer” – drawings of young people engaging in oral sex – Lorenz momentarily seems taken aback, but, again, claims ignorance about “context” and defers to the “sex educator” and even has the audacity to imply that Raichik is not qualified to decide whether her kids ought to see those images in school.

Throughout this incredibly revelatory exchange, Lorenz exemplifies many of the key problems with the "government-school-is-moral" mindset. The pusher of collectivism negates individual choice regarding payment and pedagogy, negates parental prerogatives, then, when challenged to justify a controversial aspect of the curriculum, refers to "authority.” In the classic socialist argument, this so-called “authority” is said to have been “chosen” by “the people” and, thus, it is the expert and overrules personal choice, free will, and parental rights.

One cannot tell where Ms. Raichik stands on the larger question of government-forced payments for schools, which, from the outset, is an immoral predicate, but when it comes to exposing the baseless attacks of lefties like Lorenz and revealing their weaves and dodges and eventual deference to the collectivist “authority” she has done a stellar job.

Let’s hope this video gets seen – often, and by many, many generations – rather than the content of the government-provided, “Gender Queer” book.

Follow MRCTV on X!