 So I recommend, I recommend, I recommend you guys. Okay, let's take a, you, are you on a time constraint? I forgot to ask you. Not a particular one. So let's take some, some concepts on the left. One of my favorite, the ones I, I hate the most, I guess, is, is privilege. And the whole idea of white privilege, but just the way they use the term privilege, which is. So why is that a package deal? Yeah, so take privilege even before this latest kind of woke usage of it, where it's racialized and genderized, but take like, you know, I'm privileged. I grew up in an upper middle class family. We had money and this and that, as opposed to the underprivileged youth, right, where it's just economic. Now, the concept of a privilege in the original meaning of the earlier meaning was like something granted by a king or nobility or royalty in a more general usage. It's a special good thing. What a privilege to be on your show, Iran or something I'm privileged to meet you. So there's a specifically older political usage and then a more general usage where it's like a kind of rare positive thing. So when you talk about rich people as being privileged, or even middle class people or, you know, most people is being privileged relative to the underprivileged or disadvantaged, right, you're presenting it as a kind of rare special treat or advantage that certain people got, and specifically now suggesting that it's politically a rare special treat or advantage that people got. And something about it's being a privilege requires that its specialness or unusualness is part of its goodness. So if you're privileged to meet somebody, it's because not everybody could meet that guy. You've had the rare privilege of getting to meet him. If you're being wealthy is a privilege. It's because not everybody's wealthy and you and so you have less privilege if everybody becomes rich. So there's a kind of zero sum special anything you have is a special thing that you're having it requires other people not to have it to conceptualize any value or positive thing you have as a privilege. And particularly when you start thinking of a right as a privilege in that sense, it's really dangerous because then you're thinking, you know, I would be losing my rights if he got them. I get in this meaning of privileges like privileges and immunities constitutional meaning. So now we have a kind of this usage of privilege, this kind of economic early 20th century, the privilege versus the underprivileged is I think a kind of Marxist way of conceiving of wealth. Right. And it's already a package deal between special favors and political grants just nice things that are unusual and being wealthy or comfortable. However, that came about, and it's treating it as something that didn't have causes or at least didn't have causes in anyone's virtue. So would you say in a sense politically from the economic perspective it's a package deal of an aristocrat who attains his wealth in a particular way, and a capitalist who attains it in a particular way and in a sense is done purposefully to obliterate difference. I think originally an aristocrat and a capitalist but then like an aristocrat and anyone who's not poor. At which point it becomes less and less plausible. And it's got in addition to that aristocratic wealth and the privileges of an aristocrat require other people not to have them. In a way that wealth, real wealth doesn't, right? You're wealthier if other people around you are richer. Not poorer if other people around you are richer. So it's a package deal between aristocratic status and wealth, a wealth that could be earned. And now we, the move to white privilege, male privilege, cis privilege, etc. Is now just extending that to people, it's treating people who are now not unjustly treated as their lack of a certain unjust treatment being a royal political kind of privilege, constituting an aristocracy. And that I think is really wrong and it's false and it's super dangerous to the very people who it's allegedly designed to protect. I mean you couldn't come up with a better program for electing racists than to recast racial injustice, which I think there is a significant amount of still in America, as racial privilege that white people have. If black people are mistreated or treated unjustly, how is that a privilege to me just because I'm not also treated unjustly in the same way? Would I not be? Suppose there are stores that are following around their black patrons and shouldn't be because they're suspicious of them being thieves when they shouldn't be. That doesn't make it makes me worse off, not better off. Or at best it leaves me neutral because they're not also following me. It's all of these kinds of things. The conceiving of them as privilege serves the function of making white people feel like they benefit from them. And that's supposed to be in order to guilt them into doing something about them. But one, it's unearned guilt in many cases. And two, it's not going to motivate that. It's going to motivate a backlash, which is what we've seen that it has done. Absolutely. And it's it really, there's a sense in which it assumes the natural state is one of discrimination in one of really, really bad stuff happening, you know, which I think intersectionality assumes that that's just the nature of things that we all, you know, we all discriminate against somebody, right? And that therefore, if you're not discriminated against, that's that's the that's the privilege position. That's something unique. That's something special. That's something different. Yeah, now there are, you know, mixed into all of this discourse, you know, some legitimate points that need to get should be get should get addressed in some way or other and that I think this whole way of thinking about it draws attention away from the original concept of intersectionality, which I don't think is really the name from the leftist perspective of of this worldview, but is that, you know, it's not enough to say, you know, we have to worry about discrimination against blacks or women or whatever. But there might be special forms of discrimination you face if you're at the intersection of two of these things. Yeah, that's probably true. If you're concerned to fight discrimination against blacks and against women, you might not notice that like black women are getting treated in some way that doesn't quite track either of those. Okay, fine. There's also the point I mean not fine that's something we should be aware of and think about but it's not to do with privilege. And then the other thing that comes up under the heading of privilege, a lot now is the idea that it's easy to be unaware of injustices when you're not the victim of them. And it's easy therefore to engage in behaviors or tolerate behaviors that serve to perpetuate the injustice and not to take actions that would would eliminate it. And I think that's really true too. And there are lots of examples of that that could be focused on. But when you really think about those examples and focus on them, you see that it's in your interest, it's, if you're a member of the non persecuted group, non discriminated against to broaden your awareness to notice these things and to try to fight them and to try to change them to try not to engage in actions that are examples of or perpetuate injustice and to try to fill in whatever blind spots you may have to the best of your ability. When you treat it as a privilege that you don't have to do so. It just makes people defensive and it's not, it's not doesn't work and it hasn't been working. Now they even seems to be the approach that you can't that is you can't change those things within you outside you know this is the whole white fragility. You are racist by almost by definition of being white. And, and you're, you know, you, you pretending that you have black friends or you pretending that you treat people of other colors. Equally that's just pretense there's no way that is true, and that you can change it all you can do is admit to your guilt. I mean, there's a question is to from a certain perspective it's guilt. I think the people who were who are promulgating this if they were here with it well it's not guilt what you have to recognize is that you're in a system that you can't get out of. And a lot of things that are claimed to be showing that you're not racist are just ways of evading or covering up the if you say so one thing the anti racist people say that I think is is true is that a lot of professions of color blindness are attempts to dodge the issue that makes you feel uncomfortable. There's a point to that. Yeah, you do notice in many contexts, at least when people are black and white and so forth, and you might not make a big deal of it, but maybe it has some effects and you should think about what does it and whatever. But it's, although, but the whole rhetoric of it, the whole rhetoric of it as a privilege, and as fighting your privilege or using your privilege for this and that privilege, particularly with the baggage privilege carries, does have the tone of, you're supposed to feel bad about anything good that you have that you got. It creates a kind of original thing sin kind of thinking. And again, it reads defensiveness and reflects the idea that benefits to some come at the expense to others, and that therefore what you have to do. If you're white male, cis, etc. straight, what you have to do is sacrifice. And you'll never have sacrificed enough. And in fact, what you have to do to correct what injustices there actually are is never to sacrifice. And so long as people see it in those terms, the problems can't be solved. And if you think of racial problems that have been, if not solved mitigated and gender inequality issues that have been mitigated, it has not come from this kind of demonizing of one position or thinking you have to give something up. It's come from seeing how it is better for everyone to get rid of an injustice. So another anti-concept, I think it's an anti-racism, which is connected to the whole idea of privilege. Yeah, it's become one. And here I want, this is one where I don't know if it's worth saving or not. You know, anti-communism, anti-fascism is another example. So literally, you know, there's fascism and there's opposing fascism. So you're anti-fascist. But from a long time ago, I mean, from the middle of the 20th century in Europe, it was anarchists and communists to claim the mantle of being the anti-fascists. And they organized under this banner. And now we have these kind of anti-fum movements in America. It's not an organization, per se, but a kind of, you can call it a movement. And so his anti-rate, and it doesn't stand for just being against fascism. It stands for a particular vaguely anarchic political orientation, which casts itself as anti-fascism. What about anti-racism? Well, racism is bad. We should think about what things can be done to prevent racism. And anti-racism is a perfectly sensible term for the project of not only not being a racist, but trying to work actively to combat or dismantle racial prejudice and racism in institutions. So it would be like anti-communist, which would be fine. But more and more today, it's standing for a particular ideology based on critical race theory, which is a kind of Marxist view of racism that includes a particular view of the races and a particular view of race relations and of what's to be done about it. And so that's all packaged in with just opposing racism. And the more that that term becomes associated with that brand's name of ways to fight racism, the less one, the more one should issue that term. It's becoming a package deal, or it's become one in a lot of lips. And the question is, do people who really want to fight racism, but in a different way, try to reclaim the term anti-racist and say, you guys aren't real anti-racists, so you're not anti-racists of the right sort? Or do we say, no, anti-racism is one of these co-opted terms. What we really are are people who favor genuine racial justice or the dismantling of racism or whatever it is. Are they trying to obliterate the idea of color blindness? Well, color blindness is another one of these things that's become a package deal, right? So is it an ideal that we want a society in which people aren't judged at all on their color? Yeah, that's a good thing. Or is it the claim that I'm oblivious to color? And if I'm oblivious to people's, there was a good sign that someone held up one of these rallies that said the problem with color blindness is you can't see patterns. And so if you really can't tell if someone's black or white, and it's the case that a lot of your neighbors can and they're like hurting black people and not white people and you don't notice it, that would be a problem. So what is meant by color blindness? And if it's meant that we don't... So I think it's become a kind of vague term as used both by people who are for it and by people who are against it. You don't think Martin Luther King used it that way? No, I don't. I think it's become that way since. And I think the ideal of a colorblind society is something we should be striving towards. I think we have to and recognize that we're further from that than a lot of us had hoped 10 or 20 years ago. And that recognizing that is a part of getting there. And I do think that a lot of the current way people talk about anti-racism is predicated on the other. You can never get there. Yep. I think that's right. Okay. Any other package deals or anti-concepts you want to cover? And then we've got some super chat questions, if you don't mind. I don't have another lead. We got through two right wing ones, two left wing ones as they're being said today. So I think we've been fair in our targets. Fair and balanced. Fair and balanced. All right. That's another one. It's used by various news shows that you said. Yes, I know. I'm not sure what, what the anti-concept is they're fair or balanced. So I guess both of them. But because the, yeah. So I think this question relates to white privilege. And it's asking, let me see if I can find the original. I think it relates to that. What's a better name for it? We can't ignore the marketing. They need a quick way to address the proper white privilege points Greg mentioned. So I'm not a great marketer of coming up with terms, but there's white blindness, which I've sometimes heard would be better than white privilege. It's like the, in general, the, if the point that you want to make is that when you're in a group that's not suffering from a certain kind of discrimination or injustice, it's easy to be oblivious to it. Then, you know, the obliviousness of non victims or the blindness of Don victims or the difficulty of the blind spots of Don victims. And then if you want to say that it's particularly white people who have this because you're interested in the racial version of it, as opposed to the gender or gay or whatever version of it. You could say, you know, white blind spots or white blindness or something like that would be a plausible way to describe it. So long as you don't take it as as white blindness might take it, it's impossible to ever become aware of these things. There are things that will be kind of more obvious to you if you're a victim of it. But you could learn to see it if you're not. And also, we don't want to allow that, like, you know, if you are in a discriminated against class, you are therefore automatically super alert to all the kinds of discrimination and accurate about them. I've known a bunch of women, for example, who, you know, say I've never been discriminated against for a woman and then somebody says, yeah, what about that time when that happened to you? And well, maybe I don't know. And so who's right? Which are the two? Like, it's, you know, it's not like if you're someone who might face discrimination because of sex, race, whatever it is, that you're therefore infallibly a good judge of which cases or cases of it. But you do have an advantage in spotting it over people who don't. So something like blindness or blind spots, I think it's the right rhetoric for that. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think, meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now. 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I think at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it. But but at least the people who are liking it, you know, I want to see, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share. And you can support the show at your own book show.com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and and show your support for all for for the work for the value. Hopefully you're receiving from this. And and of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe. Because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on when they're on, you'll get notified. Right. So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support, like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one or all of those, please.