 Good day. I'm at 40 here. So one thing we all appreciate about liberals and people on the left. It's how fair-minded they are, how objective they are, how they're able to kind of rise above the petty disputes of day-to-day and see things from the 10,000-foot level. I love how objective people on the left are and I agree with them that there's no such thing as an essential black person or an essential Puerto Rican or an essential Mexican or essential Gypsy or Jew or Christian or Muslim. Just knowing that someone's a Muslim or a Christian or a Black or a Puerto Rican doesn't tell you very much about them, because there's no essential Jew, there's no essential Christian that you therefore know because they're a Jew or a Christian or or a Black or a Brown or a white or an Anglite that they have certain essential traits and absolutely agree because a person is much more than their membership in a group. You have to have to understand the situation that they're in. You have to understand their genetics, their environment, their upbringing and what are the incentives that are at play. So liberals point this out with regard to race. They'll say, hey, there's no essential characteristic of a Black person. There's no essential characteristic of a Mexican American. There's no essential characteristic of a Muslim. Ah, but if you say anything bigoted, if you say, notice, oh, that according to various psychometric tests, group A tends to have an average IQ 15 points higher than group B, then they'll call you a bigot and they will ascribe an essential quality to you based on you saying something politically incorrect. Now they're all in with essentialism. So if you point out that say group A is 15 points higher in IQ than group B, then they will say you're a bigot, you're a Nazi, that you're probably a horrible person in day-to-day life and this is the racist next door. Did you know that you're living next door to a bigot and a Nazi and a hater? Right, then they're very eager to come in with all the essential traits of the bigot. So let's say you make a negative joke about some protective group, then you are essentially a hater. They then know your essence and it's nonsense, right? So I played an excerpt on my show yesterday from the Right Stuff podcast. And there was someone hoarding forth on the Right Stuff podcast about how he wanted two protective groups to be genocided, essentially. And the other members of the podcast were like trying to tamp that down a little bit, but you could tell that they all, you know, were basically on board with the the genocide thing. And you might think, oh, someone goes on a podcast and says he wants wants to see genocide against two protective groups. We now know who this man is. This is a hater. This is a bigger. This is a Nazi. This is very, very dangerous man. And just because someone goes on a podcast and says that they want to see two protective groups genocided doesn't actually tell you that much. It tells you that they have some antisocial tendencies that they don't have very much in their life that they're trying to protect. That they're probably lacking in normal forms of human connection, that they don't have a job or a profession or a social standing that they're trying to correct. All right. So those are reasonable inferences. But that same person who goes on a podcast and talks about how he'd like to see two protective groups genocided, that very same person in a different circumstance might very well run into a burning building and save the life of a member of those two two protected groups that he was just a rating about on a podcast that he would like to see them genocided. And just because someone says something horrible and genocidal on a podcast doesn't define them. Right. That's not their that's not their essence. Ah, Jim Bowden here. Look, just returned from Waverly Court and it could be beach good times. Man, bringing back the the memories my great ancestor is buried in in the Waverly Cemetery. My great Irish ancestor whose name I'm blanking on. All right. But it's just funny that people on the left are so sophisticated and say, oh, you can't describe any essential traits to a Roman Catholic or Jew or an aborigine or Japanese. Right. They then if you you say something politically incorrect, then they're all on board with describing a certain essential traits to you. So someone in the TRS podcasting network, they were an EMT and they made some some joke on the show about how they would not be particularly concerned about, you know, a member of a protected group who fell under their care. They would not be particularly concerned with doing right by that group. That's rhetoric on a podcast. There's no essential connection between the things they say on a podcast and how they actually perform their job. All right. I can come on here and I can tell you I'm the world's greatest lover that, you know, I can make a woman, you know, climax 17 times before midnight, right? I can I can say all sorts of things about my love making skills. But there's zero necessary connection between what I say about my love making skills and what happens in reality. I can come on here, talk about how I've slept with 157 women in the past 15 months. But there's absolutely zero inherent connection between what I just said and the reality of my life with the ladies over the past 15 months. So there's no inherent necessary connection between what someone says on a right stuff podcast, how they actually conduct themselves in real life. Someone, an EMT can go on a TRS podcast and say horrible things about protected groups. But then in the performance of his duties, there may very well be absolutely no difference between his performance of his duties and the performance of some bleeding heart liberal who's all on board with racial and religious integration, right? So I agree with the left and the liberals that there's no essential quality to being Jewish and Christian. It depends on circumstances and ancestry and imprinting and childhood and what the incentives are that a person faces that you need to know all those things to then predict how they're going to behave. So to someone can say something inappropriate on Twitter. Somebody can say something hateful on Twitter. And they might be a wonderful person in real life. So let me use the most dramatic example possible. Let's say you've got a Nazi concentration camp guard who is absolutely brutal and cruel in his performance of his duties. And then let's say after World War Two, he's able to assimilate back into some society. You don't know anything more about this guy, right? He may well be a law-abiding citizen, a good father, a good citizen. He may well be honest in business. He may be, you know, publicly spirited, publicly minded. He may live the rest of his life like a mensch, right? In a certain circumstance, he behaved like a demon, all right? Take him out of that circumstance. He may well lead a completely upstanding life, right? He may lead a life from there that is better, morally superior to the lives of 99 percent of the people around him. At the same time, you could take an oppressed, beaten down, tortured Jew who survives the concentration camp and he could go on to be a horrible person. He could go on to be an adult or a child molester. He could cheat in business, right? So just because you know who the oppressor is and who the oppressed is, doesn't really tell you much. There's no essential quality to being the oppressor and there's no essential quality to being oppressed because in some circumstances, all of us will behave like concentration camp guards. And in other circumstances, we will behave like concentration camp inmates. There's no group of people who are simply marked out by the will of heaven to just permanently be oppressors and other people who just permanently marked out to be oppressed. There's no inherent moral quality to being oppressed. Let's say you survive the Holocaust. You are not necessarily any more moral than anybody else. You are not necessarily any more wise, right? There's no essential quality that comes with surviving a genocide, whether it's the the Nazi genocide against Jews in World War Two or the Cambodian genocide. All right, let's say you survive the Cambodian genocide and your torturer survives the Cambodian genocide. And what happens after that? We don't know. There's no inherent quality in being a torturer and a tortured, right? Sometimes those who are tortured go on to lead exemplary lives. And just as often they go on to lead. Unexemplary lives. Sometimes people in certain circumstances are bullies and torturers and sadists and you remove them from that situation. They go on to be low abiding citizens, loyal husbands, good fathers, productive workers. Right. Sometimes the torturer will leave that situation and they will turn out to be far more honest in business than the torture. Sometimes the tortured will leave their situation. They will survive the genocide and they will come out and they will be duplicitous in business and they will be bad parents and they will be a bad spouse and they will be anti-social and they will be needlessly cruel to other people. There's no inherent essential quality to saying a bigoted word, saying genocidal words, being nasty in one circumstance, being a victim in another circumstance, right? So you might think you know someone because they flipped you off in traffic. You might think you know someone because they did a breaking and entering under a certain circumstance. Now, I think there are things that you can deduce, right? So you can play the odds, right? So someone goes into and robs a liquor store, a gunpoint in the West, all right? The odds are overwhelming. This is not a person that you want around you, all right? But you don't know their essential quality. They may go on to be good fathers. They may go on to be productive citizens. So I know people who were juvenile delinquents. They were horrible. They were thieves. They were bullies. They were nasty. They were cruel. They were anti-social in their teens. They went on, got married, had kids, became upstanding citizens, became great people. Watch it, Luke. Paul Potter is my hero. He did his torture apprenticeship under Mao Zedong. So it's just funny that we all want to think there's like the natural tendency is to think that you see one aspect of someone and therefore you know them. So your neighbor. OK, this is a debate I get into with members of my channel a lot. They it's like I say your neighbor who's left wing is just as likely to be an honest, upstanding, good citizen, good father, good member of society, good worker, as if your neighbor is right wing, right? People on the left, inherently and no less honest or productive or have any particular moral virtue than people on the right. And so I'll get there. Rejoin it. Yeah. But the person on the left, he's working to flood my country with the illegals and I can't forgive him for that in all likelihood. Your left wing neighbor has absolutely nothing to do with America's immigration policy has absolutely nothing to do with enforcement at the border is in fact doing absolutely nothing to to contribute to American immigration policy in any particular way. Ninety nine percent of people are not particularly political. Right. So you may find out your neighbors on the left and he's no more likely to be a child molester or to be raising crime levels in your neighborhood or, you know, doing any other dastardly thing that you want to impute to people on the left than if your neighbors on the right, right? Essentialism doesn't work. Deduction, right? Deduction works, right? You can deduce that if someone's engaged in certain extremely antisocial behavior in in a context where they doing that extreme antisocial behavior, they're just voluntarily doing it. They're not being forced into it. Then, yeah, you can make some logical deductions and we all have to constantly make deductions about people. But we have to make those deductions wisely and appropriately and not think that we know them just because we saw their worst side on Twitter or on social media or on TRS. Like even those, you know, genocidal maniacs on TRS, they may well be they may be good fathers. They may be hard workers. They may do positive things for society. And they might even if my car was broken down by the side of the road, they might even be the type of person who'd stop and help me with my flat tire. And and the rabbi in synagogue who preaches about love your neighbor and you have to look after your fellow Jew, right? He may well very well drive by. You know, while I'm sitting at the side of the road, you know, scratching my head with a flat tire, people are complicated, right? There's no inherent quality in being a rabbi that makes you more moral than if you you're a plumber, right? Rabbis are no less likely and no more likely to less kids than plumbers, electricians, door to door salesmen. All right. Rabbis are more likely to know more Talmud than your average plumber, but they're not more likely to be honest. They're not less likely to be honest, right? Just because someone's a journalist, they're no more likely to be a child molester than someone who's a doctor or a dentist or an accountant. I think I made my point. Bye bye.