 Everybody, today we are doing anti-white, systematic racism, and we are starting right now. We're gonna have you here for another epic debate. This is what I'll let you know if it's your first time here to modern day debate. My name is James and I am your host. We are a nonpartisan channel, so we have nothing but debates. There are no, you could say monologue type videos. We think that's great on other channels, but at this channel it's purely debates and we are excited to have you here no matter what walk of life you were from. Republican Christian atheist, you name it, we really do hope you feel welcome here. And if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button because we have a lot more debates coming up. So for example, you'll see at the bottom right of your screen, Milo Yiannopoulos will be taking on SJW Debate Boy. That's his phone name. That is on whether or not white fragility is real. So that'll be next weekend. That should be a juicy one. Also want to let you know at the far right side of your screen. On that banner there, you'll see those are all of the podcast apps that we are already on, among many others, and we are excited to invade the podcast world in addition to our YouTube channel. If you can't find us on your favorite podcast app, just let us know we'll work to get on there. So without any further ado, very excited everybody. Want to let you know a few things. First, we are stoked to have joining us tonight. Our dearest friend Kay Fellows is co-moderating with us tonight. So Kay, want to say thanks so much for helping us out tonight. We're thrilled to have you here. Thanks for having me, Matt. Absolutely. So some of you may remember Kay debated Destiny not too long ago, so that was a fun one. And with that, want to introduce our speakers. We are really thankful to have these guys here. First, want to say welcome back, Brenton. Thrilled to have you. I have linked both of these guys in the description. And Brenton, if you want to share just some of the projects that you're working on, things that people could find at those links in the description, please do what we'd love to hear at. Sure. My name is Brenton Lengel. I'm a poet, playwright, Appalachian Trail 2000 Myler. This is a photo of me summiting Katahdin after six months in the woods. I'm a black belt in Kokishin Karate. And yeah, I do these debates because I love ideas and love to talk about this stuff. The main projects that I'm working on right now is I am putting out the second issue of my comic series, Snow White Zombie Apocalypse. We're getting ready to ship. I actually got a professional editor for the first time on it, so I'm really excited about that. And I'm going to be running a Kickstarter to fund the third issue, hopefully in the next few weeks to the next month or so. So you can check that out. You can also check out my channel. I talk about backpacking, martial arts, politics, religion, Buddhism on my channel. And yeah, just all around, really excited to have this conversation. You betcha. Well, we're excited to have you here. And also very excited for the first time, Armin, we're thrilled to have you with us. I have to say, I had told people yesterday we're very excited to have you here for the first time. And one thing a lot of you, if you don't know somehow, folks, he is actually the founder of the Atheist Republic, which if I'm correct, let me know if I'm not correct. But that's the, is it the biggest Atheist Facebook group on our planet? Is that right? Yes, with 2,400,000 last time I checked. But we're way more than just the Facebook page. We're a nonprofit in both Canada and the United States. And we are also one of the largest international Atheist groups in the world. We have local consulates in almost every major city for people to get together and find other Atheists locally. We provide community and support for Atheists worldwide. We got into legal trouble with governments before, just for simply for providing a voice to Atheists. And also recently, we do go after religion on Atheist Republic, but our main goal is to provide a community for Atheists worldwide. And this is what I got into trouble recently because going after religion, we, this whole woke ideology started looking a lot like a religion to us, and we started going after it. And we lost a lot of support because of that. And some of our projects are now, we had to let some people go, but now it's slowly coming back. So we're looking over to, looking forward to bringing back more people and getting these projects back on. Other than Atheist Republic, I'm also the author of a best-selling book, Why There is No God. And I'm also the co-host on the world's largest ex-Muslim podcast with Ali Rizvi, which is called The Secular Jehadist. Wow. So it would be safe to say these, both of our guests are very productive, busy people. They're doing a lot. So we are very excited to have you guys here. And want to mention as well, so not only are both Bretton and Armin's links in the description, but we have also linked Kay, as like I had said, Kay has been on here to debate, and you can find all three of those links in the description folks. So I'm going to hand it over to Kay in just a second, as Kay is going to get the speakers going in the actual debate, but just want to let you know, folks, we have opening statements and then open conversation, followed by Q&A. So if you have a question, fire it into the old live chat, tagging me with at modern day debate. And thanks so much, Kay, for your help tonight. The floor is all yours to get us rolling. All right. Well, let's get the ball rolling. I believe Bretton is going to go first. So if you could just give us your opening statements on this very interesting topic. I'm so excited I get to be a part of this topic on whether or not there is systemic racism towards whites. Take it away. Absolutely. So the topic tonight, does anti-white systemic racism exist, is one of the more volatile and emotionally charged topics we could address. And I will be taking the negative position. It's very volatile, particularly in the fallout of the protests, reactionary violence, and the epidemic of state repression that is sweeping the nation. Do in large part to our failure as a country to address the ongoing problem of police violence and institutional discrimination that targets minority communities. Now, before we begin, I'd actually like to observe just a few seconds of silence for Garrett Foster, who died tragically and heroically while escorting his disabled wife during a Black Lives Matter march in Austin, Texas. Racism is something that has been inherent in the United States since the foundation of this country as part of our national origin rests on the uncomfortable truth that America was built on the extermination of one race and the enslavement of another. One could say that racism is in a way America's very own original sin. And it is one that we are still reckoning with today. That said, grand socioeconomic narratives are never so simple as one group of people having bad ideas and acting on them. Bad ideas don't come from nowhere and they aren't adopted arbitrarily. As such, it's important that when we talk about race, we need to define our terms. In my debate with prominent neo-Nazi JF Garipay, I gave a definition and explanation of institutional racism that is rooted in the material and sociological concerns of a given society. And this is the definition I believe we should be working with when we talk about institutional racism. Why? Well, because it's very easy to beg the question when talking about such a complex and controversial issue. And if we simply stick to what we feel racism is or feel what racism should be, we risk missing the core of the issue entirely. If we are to establish the existence of anti-white institutional racism, we must understand what race is, who or what creates it, and what purpose it serves and how it is utilized by society. And so we come to two, for lack of a better word, memes, which is to say elements of culture and systems of behavior that may be passed from one individual to another by means of imitation. In other words, monkey see, monkey do. The first meme is race. And the second meme is the state. In this context, to understand the first, you must understand the second. So what is the state? To put it simply in the words of Max Weber, renowned German sociologist, philosopher, and noted anti-Marxist, the state is any institution that manages to claim a total monopoly over the justified use of force within a given geographical area. Now, this definition of the state is distinct from the common parlance in one key feature, namely that it does not include any political institution that exists primarily for the mediation and creation of policy. The state is not the government. It is the military and the police. The difference between the government and the state is the difference between the police officer who murdered George Floyd and your local city councilor. It is the difference between a senator and the un-uniformed federal mercenaries who are currently blackbagging random protesters in Portland without due process and interrogating and holding them with neither charges nor trial. Contrary to popular belief, the state's primary function is not to protect people, not individuals, not groups, and not ethnicities. The state's function is far more specific to secure and defend valuable property. Now, this might sound radical or even shocking to some of you, but our society right now is based upon this principle. To quote Adam Smith, civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor or from those who have some property against those who have none at all. Or to go back even further to John Locke, the great and chief end of men's uniting into commonwealths and putting themselves under government is the preservation of their property to which in the state of nature there are many things left wanting. So the state, which is to say the people who are currently tasked with and doing an exceptionally poor job of quelling these protests and riots, riots which I might remind you, they themselves are responsible for, their goal at all times, whether the individual actors know it or not, is not to keep the peace. Rather, the peace is kept in order to keep the property, which is to say to serve the interests of the state's primary constituency, the wealthy, the powerful, the elite. Now, why is this important to understand when it comes to race? Well, for two reasons. One, here in America, due to the historical circumstances surrounding the founding of this nation, wealth and social class are currently divided with very little exception along racial lines. And two, more fundamentally, race itself is a product of the state's quest to remain in power and preserve the property of its primary constituents. Now, let that sink in for a moment because it's a big idea and it's not how most of us are used to thinking about race. Race itself is primarily a product of the state's quest to remain in power and preserve the property of the elite. Everything the state does is to this end. Now, we usually think of race in terms of skin color and facial features or ethnicity, but that is to miss the forest for the trees. In her book, Towards a Political Philosophy of Race, Dr. Falguni Sheth of Emory University puts forth the idea that race, as we currently understand and practice it, is a construct of sovereign power, which is to say, those who are in charge in a given society are the ones who create race. These are the people whose property the state is primarily interested in protecting. And protecting from who? Well, from you. And me. And especially those populations that are perceived to be unruly. In the words of Cersei Lannister, everyone who isn't us. Now, you'll note that I've said perceived and that's an important word, so make note of it. Populations that are perceived to be unruly are targeted by the state. The state cannot definitively know who is unruly and who is not until they act, just like the state cannot distinguish from someone who's white, from someone who's black or Arabic, but looks white enough to pass. It's not about what you actually are. It's about what a cop or a judge thinks you are, which is why we oftentimes racially motivated stops go down after things get dark because you can't tell who's driving the car. So if sovereign power thinks you're unruly, well, Mr., you'd better watch out and stop being so unruly. This perception and attitude is the systemic racism that targets the black community. It is the core of implicit white supremacy and implicit white supremacy is much more insidious than the crude racial stereotypes and bigotry that may be adopted by certain individuals. To be racialized is to have one's propensity towards criminal anti-social behavior be assumed by those in positions of authority. They solely upon the way a person appears to look visually. All other forms of racial discrimination flow from disassumption and as such, institutional racism physically cannot target white people. Individuals may be bigoted towards white people but a cop or a judge is not going to sentence a white person more harshly simply because they are a white person. It literally cannot happen in the United States. It cannot happen in the first world and it likely cannot happen anywhere on the globe at least at this point in history. However, this is not to say that white people are not oppressed and I will say unequivocably that 99% of white people are systemically oppressed. And let me say that again just so absolutely no one misunderstands me when I talk about this. Approximately 99% of all white people experience systemic oppression within their lives but it is not racist systemic oppression because white people at least in the West are seen as the default the standard citizen. Authorities cannot categorically see them as potentially dangerous. Whiteness is to race what baldness is to hair color or atheist is to religion. It is the absence of a concept rather than a positive identity. So in the light of this how are white people systemically oppressed? Well, you heard it in my previous Game of Thrones reference to quote Cersei Lannister anyone who isn't us. 99% of white people are oppressed by capitalism because 99% of white people do not own significant valuable property and as such we are regulated to the position of workers where we sell our labor to a capitalist under the conditions that are inherently favorable to that capitalist. If we don't like it and we refuse we will be denied food, housing, medication we will quickly find ourselves out on the street and in the crosshairs of law enforcement. We will be made to seem unruly not for our skin but for our clothes or economic status and this is borne out by the data because when crime rates are controlled for poverty the disparity between racial groups virtually evaporates. The point is is that whenever you want to destroy someone or make yourself comfortable with someone else destroying them you must always define them as unpeople because this erodes compassion and silences the voice of your conscience. I see you and you look a little like me and therefore I think maybe you are people and maybe you can love. Maybe you feel and experience all the joy and pain and regret that I experience. Maybe you were brothers or sisters and maybe we can live together but those people over there across the street in another country your city or in Africa or China I'm not sure they're people and I'd rather not care about them so I'm going to imagine they might be animals or idiots or robots. Those are usually the big three. The point is to shake your blood lust or quiet your anxiety or serve your vanity you use language and through that language to make their lives worth less and your own life worth more and what you don't realize is that as you do this to them sovereign power does the same thing to you. Kings are always paranoid that's why they sit on a throne with their back to the wall because when your back is to the wall no one can stab you in it. But if we are to survive on this planet if we are to thrive and build a better world for ourselves and our children we have to see through this illusion we must see through the illusion of race. We have to stop seeing the other tribe as an invader because at the moment the only thing on this planet that can kill us that can end the human race is us and so we have to learn to live with ourselves because if we don't we'll destroy ourselves through war through famine by the spreading of disease or by the power of a nuclear holocaust. We must live together or we will die alone. Thank you. Thank you Renton and Armin if you could give your opening statements or feel free to respond anything that Renton has said thus far. Yeah I mean I don't I didn't have an opening statement that's why we let Renton go so I could respond to what he's saying but I just want to say like even if I disagree with him he's like such a great writer like I was very passionate that was very fun to listen to but yeah so I don't know how to follow after that but I just want to make it clear that I'm not at all here to suggest that racism against black people or other minorities in the United States does not exist. I'm also not here to mention that the racism against I think let's say black people so I don't have to keep saying and other people like that racism against black people in the United States is not systemic I'm not suggesting that it is systemic I'm also not here to suggest that racism against white people in the United States is worse than racism against black people it's not it's not even close right. So I'm not saying any of those things but I do I do think that we might have a problem with definitions and if we don't you know if we disagree on definitions that we might be talking over each other with it like we're not even talking about the same thing we might be saying things that we even agree with would agree with each other if we were using each other's definition so the definitions that I'm working with is the ones that are like show up if you search for them for race the definition I'm working with is a race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society like there's no involvement of state and how they manage people and what their agenda is that doesn't come into my definition and also when it comes to institutional racism or systemic racism I understand that some people have different definitions for this but most people use these interchangeably and the definition that I use for that is the one that shows up I'm comfortable with what the common definition is which is a form of racism that is embedded as normal practice within society or an organization it can lead to such issues as discrimination and criminal justice employment, housing, healthcare political power and education among other issues another way to explain systemic racism and again we could debate whether it's helpful to define racism in the systemic racism or not or whether implicit racism is real or not because there's debates about that there's not a consensus on that but assuming all of that is valid systemic racism is the way I understand it is something as opposed to explicit form of racism explicit form of racism is intentional is based on individuals and it's basically what most people traditionally recognize as racism I hate you I hate these groups like I would never let my daughter for example date a black person that kind of crap people say like oh my god yeah you're a goddamn racist that's explicit form of racism systemic racism could be the sources of systemic racism or maybe the point about systemic racism is that it doesn't have to be intentional and it doesn't have to be even based on individuals bias it could be so systemic racism the way I understand it is either based on implicit bias or racism by outcome right so implicit bias is a form of racism where people have these biases that they're not aware of there are some tests that suggest that most people do have those biases whether they're white black or whatever but I don't those studies have been disputed I'm not I'm just going to assume right now that they're true I haven't it's it's hard for me to analyze them myself I'm open to being proven wrong on this like because I'm not an expert on this but I can right now I think we're both on the side that implicit bias is a thing it's real but and also we have a racism by outcome racism by outcome doesn't require intentional or unintentional racism right it's basically if you have a system that produce after adjusting for everything justifiable like crime rates like percentage of population or anything else that's any other variable that will justify that a racist a bias outcome if you adjust for all of that if you still get bias outcome even if nobody in the system is explicitly or implicitly racist the system itself is racist right so for example one reason why we might say that United States is systematically racist against black people and that doesn't require intentional racism by anybody in the in these institutions is when you even after adjusting for population and even after adjusting for crime rates and severity of the crimes you still seem to get harsher sentencing against black people based on how dark they are even if the judges are black like there's something in the system that is produced producing these racist outcomes even if that is not the intention of anybody in the system so that that will make the system racist even without requiring intention from the individuals within the system right so those are the two sources of systemic racism and those are real I think I think what we can acknowledge though is based on these definitions you know as as bad as systemic racism is it is progress to have reduced explicit racism explicit racism intentional racism and is in my opinion worse than unintentional racism or racism by outcome right and yeah and and the fact that we I mean reducing explicit form of racism or intentional form of racism does not mean our job is done obviously any form of racism is bad and but if I could but I could I think it's fair to assume that a systemic form of racism is more widespread than any form of explicit form of racism no matter how much explicit form of racism you have right so if there if you see widespread explicit form of racism in any society you could assume that you must also have a lot of systemic form of racism in that society right so what what I have to admit is that this is the reason why I think there is some at least some systemic form of racism against white people in the United States because of the existence of obvious explicit form of racism um this is um hypothesis right so what I have to admit is that there is no data there's absolute zero data that will prove what I'm saying because it hasn't been this hasn't been researched when it comes to systemic racism against black people there is plenty of data that proves that beyond any doubts okay that systemic racism against black people is a thing um based on the definitions that I just gave and there is zero data that shows that systemic racism against white people is a thing so what I my position is only a hypothesis and I'm happy to be proven wrong if there is once there's data on this right but I but but I think it is again as so hypothesis or you could say an educated guess based on anecdotes again anecdotes doesn't prove anything but the examples that we've seen outright open accepted form of explicit racism against white people and the fact that how the limited backlash against it and the normalization normalization of it in society to me suggests that given how accepted explicit form of racism against white people is in countries like United States or United Kingdom or some other places this explicit form of this normalization of explicit form of racism must have or I think again I could I'm happy to be proven wrong must have somehow creeped into institutions as you know and within the way that organize education again you keep you mentioned the state but based on my understanding of systemic racism it could be private institutions public institutions the government society media entertainment any formal any institutional racism could exist within any of these and it doesn't have to be widespread and everywhere as long as you have it but in some institutions based on the definition that I read you do have institutional racism or systemic racism right so for example when again based on the definitions that I'm going by white people and again I understand that some people say race is not a thing and if you're looking at it from a biological perspective that is true the only other race that we had was the Neanderthals and we killed them but so from a biological perspective there's only one human race left but we when we talking about the common use of the word of you know race we do like if you if we because for example words mean different things in different fields for example the word law for example in mathematics means something completely different than the word law and law school right so race means something completely different in a biology class than when you're you're talking about race in I don't know society it already is just common use I think and based on that definition of race not in biological sense yes race is a thing yes it's made up but there's many things that are made up that we decided to doesn't mean that it's not meaningless like I don't know contracts are made up but it's not meaningless it's a good thing that we define them and race is also something that we made up and it's a means it's a real thing even though we made it up and based on that definition white people are a race black people are a race you know Persians Arabs not Jews Ashkenazi Jews they're all different races and you could be absolutely you could be racist against white people and something we have to first acknowledge is that if I can't convince you that I mean I don't know if you agree with me that explicit form of racism against white people exist then I don't know we don't even we can't even move forward to talking about whether this racism is systemic or not right so I think the first step is to even see if we could agree that if people say fuck white people cancel white people all I want for Christmas is a white genocide are these like all white people are racist saying white people are responsible for all the evils in the world these things that I you know following a lot of I'm not saying you ever said that but but following a lot of far left content creators I don't know what to call them woke people for our left content creators again I also want to make clear what woke scolds is the term I think you but I also want to make it clear that if I say far left this has nothing to do with the left like I don't want to come across as suggesting that even far even everybody on the far left or the left things like this okay but this is mostly a far left an idea that comes from far left circles and and it is a common view like it's I mean it's not a majority view but it is widespread it's big enough for us to acknowledge that a lot of people hate white people okay and I've seen examples of it I mean in the past five years it seems to be becoming more and more mainstream and also it used to be that it just doesn't get the backlash that other form of racism gets like the same things that people would say about black people Jewish people Arabs or any other a group of people if you say the same statements against white people the form of systemic racism that I saw it was like okay you just you can get away with it but now I'm seeing that actually different organizations and different media mainstream media are actually even you know spreading those ideas spreading hatred towards white people talking about a whole group of people in general terms I mean even if you don't want to I hope that even if you don't want to acknowledge that define that as racism that would be just a semantics I'm hoping that you acknowledge that that's disgusting and wrong to talk about a whole group of people in such general terms and as we go forward I could come I could talk about some examples of what I've seen to show you why within media within different institutions why you know just outright racism against white people is normalized and accepted but whether or not we agree on the definition I mean I would be happy to for you to be like okay this is not racism but it's disgusting vile and nobody should talk about any group of people in such general terms whether I call it racism or not right I would I would be happy if if you would say something like that right but that would be they that that would be the explicit so for example then I'll give you a minute left okay I'll I'll come up with examples once we get once we go back and forward forward in the discussion so I'm happy to end it here you've got it all right I'm going to take it away friends awesome so the first thing I wanted to do was I wanted to acknowledge what you're saying specifically about things that you've seen targeted towards people who superficially resemble me and I want to applaud you for having that compassionate reaction because it does suck when people are mean to somebody for like bad reasons you know I have experienced I for the purposes of this discussion I'm not going to call it racism um not because I wouldn't call that racism on the street necessarily but we have to understand the difference between and you even actually brought this up in your opening statement so you do understand this difference between a technical definition and a colloquial definition because words are they're symbols and they stand and they mean different things in different contexts and sometimes there are even concepts that we don't have a word for within a language and it limits our ability to talk about it like one of my favorite things that I wish English had but doesn't but German does is like there's a term I'm not even going to try to pronounce it but it basically means like a face in need of a fist I usually think of that when I look at like Tucker Carlson and I'm kidding about that by the way nobody punched Tucker Carlson but like it's difficult to have that concept within a to have certain concepts so the English language conspires to make discussions like this difficult which is partially I think by accident maybe partially a little bit by design so first off I'm let's can we refer to somebody hating explicitly hating someone as bigotry for who they are for bad reasons and that bigotry could be based on race but it isn't racism in the way that like people are racist against black people necessarily just when we're talking about like large systems of power is that okay I consider bigotry based on race to be racism but I'm happy to work with your your definitions just because I don't want us to argue semantics because we we understand what we're talking about yeah because when you're dealing with like like you're not a bad actor but when you're dealing with bad actors within this a lot of people will play like a Mott and Bailey fallacy where what they'll do is they will try to move around and change the definition of race or racism based upon what's most convenient for their argument and let's try to avoid that so first off yes I will acknowledge that anti-white bigotry exists I don't necessarily think that like hashtag waiting for white genocide is necessarily it's not really I don't that's not really a hashtag something like that that's not really a call for white genocide that's people making fun of Nazis who think that like like Nazis think that like if you show an interracial couple in a TV commercial that's white genocide which is simply not the case but you know again pose law there may be some not so woke scold out there that actually does hate white people and takes that stuff seriously but one of the things that I've learned because I've dealt a lot with the radical left is I was very active in Occupy Wall Street and since then you know I covered the movement I covered trials and the movement and when you deal with people on the radical left a lot of the time and this is I'm not talking about Democrats I'm talking about like communists and anarchists and other forms of socialists you get a lot of hyperbole in the way that they talk and they don't necessarily mean what they're literally saying so like I might I might be sitting there on Facebook for instance and see a nasty story about some guy being a total jackass and I might I type sarcastically hashtag kill all men underneath it not because I want to kill all men because I'm a dude but just like oh this frustrates me so much so what happens is is things that appear as hate speech when targeted in different directions may simply be somebody making a joke or making some sort of a reference or something you see it when people get accused of racism and they say I was kidding or whatever now you're right in that people do not respond to these sorts of attacks against white people in the way that they do against minorities but that's for actually a very very good reason and it's because these attacks even when they are seriously said like I remember I was walking down the street I live in Harlem and an old black lady I walked by her and I heard her mutter under her breath their cave dwellers and she was having this like racist or bigoted speech with herself about how terrible white people were and you know I don't know what was going on in her life I don't know why she was frustrated like that but you know and it made me made me feel a little bit because essentially what she was doing was she was dehumanizing me and people that looked like me but no one is going to take that and hurt me because she said it however there is this thing called pseudo speciation and this is that humans we have a block in our minds a psychological block that prevents us from essentially you don't you don't eat your own kind so if you've got people that want to hurt someone or rape someone or steal from someone what they have to do first is convince themselves unless they're a total sociopath that that other person isn't human and one of the ways that they do it is through language remember when I talked in my opening statement about you know idiots robots or animals and if you look at like white nationalists and you look at like virulent misogynists and people they use this very aggressive language like what is it incels they call women femoids that is pseudo speciation now if you try to pseudo speciate a white guy like myself you're going to have a really hard time convincing people that I'm not human because as my identity is like at the top of the identity social pyramid at least as far as like race is concerned and gender and sex and orientation is concerned but what happens is the further you go down that pyramid the more vulnerable a situation of person is actually in and the easier it is to erode that those feelings of compassion so you know you get a bunch of people they start saying racial slurs over and over again they repeat it that compassion gets eroded and eroded and broken down until people who maybe already want to do some form of violence for whatever reason decides hey it's okay so the huge overreaction or seeming overreaction the double standard that you see is because hate speech represents a legitimate physical threat to the people that it targets whereas hate speech against white people even if it is super hateful and awful is not going to have the same kind of effect it's just going to be someone being mean to us for a bad reason for the most part we can let it roll off our backs does that make sense well I I agree that it's not as bad but what I don't agree is that it needs to be that bad for it to be institutional racism right I agree that as the world we're living in today it's not we're very unlikely to I mean well actually I might somebody's gonna play this like one month from now somebody's gonna kill a white person and we're like I mean what the hell did you see yeah but but it doesn't it doesn't exist the violence the violence the dehumanization the consequences is not at all the same level at least not in the United States I mean the de facto thing that you're mentioning about you know white people is being the de facto that's only in white majority countries just to be fair but well I mean not necessarily I do agree with you for the most part on that but also like take China for instance China is not a white majority country but if I'm not mistaken like in China if you're white you can be hired just to be a white person hanging out somewhere like they will hire white people just to hang out in like Chinese club so people go to that club because they think rich white people are gonna be there yeah yeah I mean obsession with white people is I've seen that many in many places in Philippines in Iran in China that is to be fair that's also extremely racist and disgusting but so what I'm based on the definition that I was working with but when it comes to institutional racism it doesn't it doesn't say that this is it's systemic if it leads to violence it's systemic if it involves dehumanization okay and also wouldn't it be systemic if it involves a system yes so what I consider people being explicitly bigoted towards white people that's not what I consider systemic racism that's explicit form of racism okay the reaction to it to me suggests a systemic form of racism the double standard like even if we remove the so you're saying it's it's justified because it doesn't really lead to violence or dehumanization I wouldn't say it's justified I think it's still it's still shitty like you know it's still just to be sure this kind of gets just to be sure that Armin had a chance to finish that thought unless no no no I'm happy I'm happy to be interrupted like this it's good yeah okay I'll just so this kind of goes down to my own personal philosophy and I'm a Buddhist with Soka Gakkai and one of the reasons that I do these debates is because the idea of confronting slanderers of the Lotus Sutra by the way I'm not calling you that the idea which is another way of saying attacking the ideas of those who try to dehumanize other people and say that someone is inherently less than another is something that is part of my Buddhist practice it's something that I I'm very devoted to and I would say you know even if you're doing it as a joke putting you know hashtag kill all men that is a very minor slander of the Lotus Sutra because even if you don't intend it to be a horrible thing to dehumanize people you know someone's going to take it seriously especially if it's if it's replicated en masse you know there's always that idiot who takes things a little too far beyond what somebody intends when they when they put something out into the world so right I think you know for instance Twitter can be a very toxic environment but and so what if I'm if let me just see if I'm getting you correctly what you're saying essentially is is because Twitter is a toxic environment and people are not sufficiently critical of the toxic environment that is Twitter systemic racism against white people exists is that the argument or am I missing I'll give you more specific example right after I mentioned this first of all I do have to say that I've seen some people do saying that seriously again that is it's not a I don't doubt it okay and I also want to acknowledge the fact that you you know I'm grateful that you do label that as something vile and disgusting you know but the thing is that given that you agree with me that is something violent discussing even with even before it gets to the point of violence or dehumanization what I've noticed is that within United States just saying what you just said can get over into organizations into trouble even calling it out and saying that this is not okay right could get giant corporations to come into into trouble just even acknowledging that like for example um I don't what was his name Nick Cannon right do you see do you see his was do you know what I'm talking about Nick Cannon I the name is vaguely ringing bell I'm not sure so who's this guy so he just recently had an interview I don't know if I'm saying his name right yeah I think let me make sure so he just recently had an interview this is just one example okay I could give you a lot of examples okay he just recently had an interview talking about white people and Jews and these are like the black israelites he believes in there right but again so what the things that he was saying in the interview was this is not system what he was saying was not systemic racism okay because that's an example of explicit racism he was being intentionally saying vile things discussing things against Jewish people and against white people okay go watch that interview because it's it becomes it is dehumanizing actually all right because he was comparing white people to animals to being barbaric to being he was saying that melanin is what gives you a soul melanin is a source of compassion source of intellect source of civilization so wait is this guy a black israelite or was he just giving an example wait actually is he black israelite no no sorry he's like oh yeah black israelite and he also he also yes no he was he I'm not sure if he officially and consider himself as part of that organization but he seems to be saying a lot of things that they say and also a lot of things that nation of Islam seems to be saying as well right so I think they picked these a lot of people don't I'm not sure exactly about them so somebody maybe in the live chat you correct me but I've noticed a lot of people that are not officially part of any of these organizations they borrow a lot of their narratives right but I want to point out really quickly before we go and this will I'll let you get back to it what you're describing is bigotry which is not necessarily system evidence of systemic racism that's what I want yeah I'm not saying I'm not saying what he was saying is systemic racism I think what I'm going to point is the reaction to it okay because if you watch that interview and it's a long interview and it's so funny man like you will have a but he goes into the way that he described and you have to see the level of support that this narrative gets among this committee I mean again there is and what is is this the black israelites or the nation of islam or what's the both and a whole bunch of other so there's a small circle of these people that associate with these groups and then there's a larger group of people that believes a lot of their narratives and borrow it and endorse it without them considering themselves as part of these groups okay and they are big they are a small percentage but again small percentage of a big number gives you a large enough number of people to be have very problematic views but again none of these views is as are examples of systemic racism these are to me these are all definition yeah these organizations don't have any systemic power they're just yes but again he was okay so they don't but who hold on let me see where nick conant was fired from he was fired okay he was fired by Viacom Viacom is a big enough organization with institutional power right okay but if you look at the statement from Viacom and the reason why he was fired was the parts that he talked about Jewish people not anything not the length all the stuff that he said about white people comparing saying that they're not even human saying that they don't have a soul saying that they don't have compassion because their skin is white none of that was reason enough for his firing okay and again I think getting fired for his anti-semitic views was justified right I'm not so just saying that people should be less and like react there shouldn't be a reaction to people being anti-semitic again okay freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of your speech right but what I'm saying is that he should he should have also gotten fired if he didn't say any of the anti-semitic parts and had all those all the vile things that he said about white people that should have gotten fired as well okay yeah I agree with you on that but what I'm going to point out is just because they gave that as their official reason does not mean the other stuff didn't play into it Viacom was probably just covering their their asses because if for instance they had fired him for the white stuff that could be misinterpreted by certain communities and activists as being anti-black essentially even though they're not but what they're doing is they're saying okay we can fire him for this stuff he said about about Jews because nobody can argue with us that that is 100% racist I mean Nazis will argue with him but no one can does that not show to you that there's a level of acceptance of being able to say vile you know I mean this is just one example and it's not a level of I would say it's not a level of acceptance it's a level of plausible deniability so you know again this the big problem with a lot of this is people lie you know you go up to Richard Spencer you ask him if he's a hateful person he'll say no you know people lie about who they are they lie to themselves and they lie about their motivations for a variety of reasons so whenever you're dealing with something that's really thorny like this issue of race you know you have to deal not just with the people who tell the truth but also the people who are bad actors so for instance when that that it's okay to be white thing was was hashtag no one was saying it wasn't okay to be white but literal neo-nazis on 4chan put that forth with the hopes that they could use that to push their neo-nazi ideology and so you will see neo-nazi accounts tweeting it's okay to be white and then people will try to call that out and they'll say no I'm just saying it's okay to be white everything's fine so you know you have to deal with bad actors and I think Viacom being a huge corporation that could be targeted by a lot of lawsuits has to be extremely careful with corporate PR culture so what they are going to officially fire someone for and tell everyone we're firing them for this reason may not be the whole of what they are taking into account but doesn't that prove my point the fact that it would be a political nightmare for them to come out and say I don't think it would be a political nightmare I just think it would be a little more risky okay I mean I disagree but let's even go with that the fact that it's political risky to come out and say for an organization that powerful for it to be risky to come out and say oh yeah we don't tolerate anti I mean I would say anti-white racism but I'll go with your words like we don't tolerate anti-white bigotry even if it's not in this organization and that's why we're letting you go the fact that you will get in trouble for that the fact that you're going to get in the shitload of I mean that's that should go with that thing it wouldn't necessarily be that they'd get in trouble for that well so let's say they do let's say they say this because what happens is is that when somebody says something people infer from what they're saying it's like what are they not saying so say Viacom looks at that thing and they say we're firing him for his anti-white statements right and they put that out in their press release first of all people will say whoa he said anti-Jewish stuff what about the Jews and then other people will look at that and say okay well what's what's the percentage of the people who work there how many black people do they employ what are their salaries what's going on here so people will dig into that and attack them based upon the perception that they are hiding something or at least that would be my understanding of it which would be why the corporate PR culture would be very careful now is this right in a certain sense yes and in a certain sense no in the sense no in that it's not fair because it is a double standard and if we could take everything at face value you should be able to fire someone for like anti-white but also in the sense of no because again there is not a immediate threat to white people of like not being able to find jobs or being overly do you agree that somebody coming out and saying white people are like animals white people have no soul I mean nobody has a soul but that's another topic but white people specifically don't have a soul and white people do not have compassion they're barbaric they're violent and that's you know if somebody just says that and says nothing about Jewish people even if it doesn't lead to violence even I mean this is already dehumanizing but I mean I'd say I would say that that guy would would have been fired for what he said for white people they just would have wanted the more careful if it was shown to you that if somebody loses the job from because of something like that there would be a lot of pressure on an organization that does carry out like something like that and there's a lot of pressure not to take action against somebody that is only bigger to the against white people and not against any other group of people if you see that it's easy for big institutions and politicians and media you know to call out bigotry bigotry that is just bigotry not leading to violence against black people or Jewish people I mean let's just forget black people like let's I mean let's put aside because I agree with you like that that has bigger consequences right but you given if you just a bigotry against white people even calling it out even acknowledging it even saying even you know even coming out and saying that that bigotry against white people is the thing it's real gets you demonized and people call you out as racist for even saying that people remove you from your your their social circles people you know I mean I can I don't know again because of all of what I've seen has not been collected in a scientific way that could you know that I could present in in the data this is just based on my experience and the things I've seen but this is this kind of attitude is why it's spread I think and because it's my personal experience and it's not collected scientifically I'm hope I'm happy to be proven wrong but if I if it was shown for this to be the case wouldn't that be an example of some form of system I don't know so you don't like say racism systemic bigotry I mean I wouldn't say it's systemic I mean what you've got there is you've got a corporation that's concerned with profits primarily and it's looking to protect its profits and that's why it's getting rid of these people it's not it's not moral outrage over the treatment of Jews or the treatment of of white people that's prompting Viacom's behavior it's they want to make sure that their profits stay intact and that the people who invest get a higher return on investment and that their owners and shareholders are happy but that but that's true for all form of systemic racism institution like for-profit companies always act with the intentions of maximizing profit yeah and and you know go back to you know well actually not always because sometimes they will act counter to profit if it is if they are sufficiently racist I mean you saw that in the Jim Crow South that would be a form that would be true if there's explicit form of racism intentional form of racism right but but the systemic racism that is not that is happening without explicit form of racism could you know if it's happening within private institutions private organizations is probably as a result of Viacom I mean even implicit racism can still cause someone to act in a way that is counter to profits a great example honestly is what we learned with the Black Panther movie because for years and years people didn't want to see movies with Black superheroes in them or that's what Hollywood believed and kept saying the same thing with the Wonder Woman movie we can't see a movie that's starring a woman nobody will want to watch it nobody wants this and what we found with Wonder Woman and Black Panther there's a huge huge market for this but the intention is profit that's I mean yeah their intention their conscious intention is profit but their conscious attention towards profit is influenced by systemic or by implicit racism and sexism so I think what we're doing by the way is we're there's a bit of a conflation between implicit and systemic in systemic contains both explicit and implicit types because it relates to systems and how systems interact with people whereas implicit is unconscious bias towards a person for bad reasons and big and you know explicit conscious bigotry is explicit the way the way I said there's three forms there's explicit form of racism implicit form of racism and racism by outcome and the systemic form of racism is the last two is a mix of the last two that's the way I saw it but I'm happy to change my definitions have you ever read a People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn? no I would highly recommend you check it out because they do a the fourth chapter I believe and it's online for free you can see it at historyasoweapon.com but it's called drawing the color line and it actually goes into you know as I said the United States is own original sin that's my term not his but I stole it in the bible so whatever or I stole it from Catholics so but uh this is why by the way this is why it's giving us and as an asias organization an excuse to go after all of this because it's becoming so much like a religion but go I mean no you know what I gotta tell you I do think that there is a lot of religious or culturally religious behavior in a lot of kind of the the woke scold kind of things I think you are correct in in latching on to that confessing your sins penance like there's a lot of the father being the sins of the sun yeah now I don't think that's necessarily 100% tied to religion I think a part of that is human culture and you know we could that'd be a great debate in and of itself to just go into that and to see where these kinds of antisocial tendencies come from but what I was one the reason why I brought that up is it talks about the creation of racism and racist attitudes at the beginning of the foundation of the United States because originally when they brought both black and white people over they were not brought over as slaves they were brought over as indentured servants and they seemed on the contract that to be equal parties with the people indenturing them now in reality no that was just the contract and these people were basically slaves either they'd been captured or wound up in debt but what happened was was that after the first few joint revolts where the black people and white people joined together and had rebellions against the landowners that owned them suddenly they passed explicit laws that were made to prevent to that that punished any kind of sorry where where are we getting with this sorry I don't mean to interrupt because this is a form of like this is anti-black stuff I'm pointing yeah I'm pointing out the origin of racism the socioeconomic origin of the American form of racism of systemic racism in American history I think we I think we agree on that and I also would agree with you if you want to say that the effects of that even continues till today like for example I agree with generational poverty I agree that Jim Crow and slavery is the effects of it is not erased and sure but my point in bringing it up and seriously reads in it's really good like he's not he's not the best writer in the world but it's it's a good book the reason I'm bringing it up is that both the explicit and the implicit attitudes were tied together from the very beginning and one grows from the other so I don't think you can separate that's what I'm saying I'm categorizing them I'm not separating them obviously explicit the more explicit form of racism do you have they even wider the systemic form of racism is going to be one one leads to another in fact what explicit form of racism if it's there for a long time even once you get rid of it is the systemic racism that was the systemic form of racism that lingers on after that is as a direct result of the explicit form of racism being part of the society and accept it right and that's why I also think that the explicit form of racism that exists against white people given that it's becoming normalized and accepted that will that has or will lead into systemic form of racism that's what I think but one thing I want to ask is what do you what do you think about people like Robin D'Angelo and Abram Kendi and books like anti-racism and white fragility like do you think like I don't know how much you know about their narratives but do you think like the idea of white fragility is and the things that Robin D'Angelo for example says is that a bigoted way of just talking about white people I mean I haven't read her book so I don't know so what I would say about white fragility is I would need data on that now I have seen white people go to absolute pieces whenever they get taught whenever somebody talks about racism with them it's an emotionally charged issue so there may be some sort of fragility but you would need to demonstrate that with sociological data and I haven't seen any of the data she's not interested in data because she says she thinks data and science is white people tools to oppress minorities and I hope you see how ridiculous that is and she doesn't even suggest that she outright says that okay and she also is okay she also mentions that she's completely okay with generalizing white people and just you know talking about them collectively rather than individually I mean do you agree that those are I get this is I'm not this is not an example of systemic racism but I think this is like am I mad at Robin D'Angelo is that what you're asking me no no not personally like I think do you consider talking about a whole group of people's the way Robin D'Angelo does do you consider that I mean I call it explicit racism but would you consider that bigotry I would have to see how she actually talks about them like I said I haven't read the book what I would say is at the very least if you're heavily generalizing about an entire group of people without data you're behaving irresponsibly I would say that's an irresponsible statement without data to back it up so let me tell you for example another example for why I might think that systemic racism against white people and again I know I understand that the way the way you're your definition is different than mine but I want you to see where I'm coming from given that what I see what people like Abram Kendi and Robin D'Angelo are saying given that I consider that explicit form of racism intentional individual do you have a direct quote from them by the way just so I can respond I should have prepared that if you don't have one you can send it to me later okay I will but given that I consider I mean she comes out and says that right that she's okay with generalizing white people but she says that in as as clear as it could be right and you know and she considers racism to be a white thing right white people are racist and this is the author and this is the author of the white fragility white fragility you'll notice something very important about that but okay let me make let me make a point though what she says to me is not an example of systemic racism what is an example of systemic racism is that she's now the her book is the number one bestseller when it comes to race issues in the United States what suggests to me that anti-white racism is systemic is now her book and her dogma and her methodology is now treated as gospel in diversity training and anti-racism in corporate America in universities in many universities in government institutions and do you have any data to back that up besides the book sales do you have any data to back that up well I can send that to you as well but the thing is that it's I didn't say in so here's the thing it's really easy to show that it's being used as the go to you know doctrine methodology for anti-racism training because it's selling well no no no it's being used okay I will I will send that to you okay it's being used heavily I'm not saying everywhere I'm not saying all I have to show is that it's being used a lot not that it's being used by majority of corporation not that it's being used everywhere okay but it's being used a lot it is then number one her book her and Ibram Kendi are the top two leading figures when it comes to and again it's what you said it's a profit motive right yeah it's corporate PR yeah it's corporate PR like these like these organizations they just go look at the top sellers the people that other people are seeing as authority they hire them they're like look we're doing something about it can you please shut the fuck up and not you know not come after us right so but they are it is but unfortunately it is spreading and that's the treatment of corporate America and universities I mean again what I have is also a lot of stories and example and again this is not what I also mentioned is that I'm happy to be proven wrong with data but I have a lot of anecdotes of students in universities that are these this is being taught to them in in philosophy classes in sociology classes in diversity in in classes that is these these these books don't even belong to in people that are learning about education in classes that people are learning about how to teach kids apparently they have to learn about so how many students are you hearing this from exactly well I mean a lot I don't know how I can send you like again these are all it doesn't really yeah because sounds like anecdotal data now I agree with you that it's anecdotal that that's why what I'm what I say I think anti-white racism is systemic in the United States I don't think I don't even sheet that as a theory I cheated as a hypothesis because I've only seen enough anecdotes to think that this should be considered seriously not that I'm not you know not that it's been proven that this is a widespread say right so so can I give you a quick example of systemic racism as it plays into the United States against black people just really quickly so we can see actually can I suggest that because if you're going to say to me that systemic racism against black people is a lot worse I don't think we're going to have this agreement there yeah I'm not saying that it's worse I'm I'm saying or more widespread or even more widespread I mean I think it is worse and more widespread if we are to assume that the systemic racism takes place but I mean again the term for systemic racism was created specifically to deal with how systems interact with minorities so if this if it's not sufficiently like the systemic racism that interacts with minorities should we even call it systemic racism or should we come up with some new terms for it? I'm just working with the definition that I have the definition that I have is a form of racism that is embedded as normal practice within within society or an organization the interesting thing is that it doesn't even say organizations like you have to have an organization right I think it's easy to prove what I'm saying I think well I think the problem is is one you're going with a dictionary definition and dictionaries only use words and how they are used in common parlance and you're using a dictionary definition to argue essentially with academics using a technical definition oh I'm happy to be saying that systemic racism is not a thing if we go with a definition that doesn't show that like if you say oh I'm working with this definition and based on this definition systemic racism against white people and another thing I would be like yep you're right based on that definition systemic racism against white people is not a thing all I'm saying is based on this definition which I'm happy not to use if you don't like all I'm saying is that based on this definition that I'm working with systemic racism against white people is a thing I mean I would say that that definition at least in the way that you're talking about it and describing it is insufficient because it is so different in practice than what the people who created the term systemic racism meant when they created it. So like a good example would be Freddie Gray. Freddie Gray lived in Baltimore and he was directly affected by Jim Crow and redlining. Now he lived after it, he was during our lifetime, but I think he was actually younger than me. But he was raised because of redlining because people would not get, and the government would not give home loans to black families. He was raised in illegal tenement housing that had lead paint on the walls. He grew up as a baby ingesting lead paint. The lead paint damaged his mind and stunted his development. And this lead, and this was proven in court. It did happen. He won a lawsuit about it and then was later tricked out of his money by a corporation that tricked him into trading away his whole settlement for like a small lump sum that was spent very quickly. Freddie Gray that the ingestion of lead damages your ability to think critically. It increases your aggression. And when he was targeted by the Baltimore Police Department, he, I believe, ran. And because he ran, they tackled him. They found like a small knife on him and they took him for a rough ride in their van and drove the van around basically doing donuts with him not buckled in and it severed his spine and killed him. Now that's an example of systemic racism. And it wasn't even necessarily explicit systemic racism from those officers. They might have thought, oh, this is just a jerk and we're going to give him a tough time. But you can see how all of those factors contributed to this perfect storm that killed this human being after making his life miserable. I mean, if you want to give me examples of systemic racism against black people being a real thing, I mean, I think we're both... It's not that it's a real thing. It's that it's so different from what you were describing that I don't think it's appropriate to use the same term. I think what you're describing is bad, but I think it should have a different term. Okay, but if we're... Okay, maybe you're right. Okay, and I'm happy to be saying like, maybe we should have come up with a different definition than here. But if that was a definition that we were using, would you then say that systemic racism based on that definition, I guess white people is the real thing? I mean, I'd be careful saying systemic because then someone might misinterpret me. But what I might say is let's call it just for the sake of argument right here. I know we're doing a debate here, but just for the sake of argument in this one, what if we called it like toxic woke scold culture or we called it toxic PR culture, toxic corporate PR culture? I would say, yeah, that sucks and somebody should do something about it. Okay, great. I mean, I don't mind if it's using different words as long as we can acknowledge that it's toxic and having to deal with it. I think I would be happy with that. Yeah, yeah. Well, again, and I'm fine with it because what I'm mostly concerned about is I don't wanna see the struggles of minority people kind of washed out and replaced with the struggles that white people necessarily have to deal with that are bad, but not the same thing. Actually, and that's a very important concern. And one thing I have to acknowledge is that sometimes, I'm not sometimes, a lot of times people use stuff that I'm trying to say as a way to dismiss the racism that exists against black people. And it would be irresponsible of me to not clarify that every time I try to mention the racism that exists against white people and within that same content, I have to be careful to mention that other forms of racism are real and a big problem, a bigger problem, not because, again, it's unfortunate that I have to do that because I think it should be okay for some people to be focusing on some problem without having to acknowledge other problems that exist, but given how common it is for people to misuse that form of narrative to dismiss the racism against black people. You don't mean to interrupt you, but we are going to try to move into the Q and A. That's my last, I just want to quickly say this that I think as content creators, we are responsible for our audience. We cannot say that I didn't mean to say this. People just took my narrative and use it for own propaganda. I think as content creators, if we are aware that people are constantly misusing our points, then it is the responsible thing to do is to clarify that you do not stand with those people, right? I think, so just wanted to point that out, but yeah. Really quickly, before we move into it, I just wanted to say, I think we just actually came to an understanding the internet works. So thank you, dude. And I really appreciate this discussion. I'm excited to do the Q and A. Yeah, you kind of rock, so I'm glad. Thank you. Does anybody else have any closing statements they want to make before we move into questions? No, I'm okay. Yeah, I kind of wanted to say something really quickly and this is just because when I was doing my research on you, I think you talked a little bit and you used kind of the term like the regressive left. And I think what we just hit on right here is why I think the smarter ones on the regressive left may be a little less keen to criticize Islam. Because like if I'm coming from my own perspective, I live in New York City, there was a cab driver in New York that came in and a guy had come back from Afghanistan and he asked the cab driver if the cab driver was Muslim, he responded like, Asim al-Aqbar or whatever they say, and the guy slit his throat. And I always think of that when I am going to say something about some other community of people. So I think in the same reason that I'm a little careful with racist stuff, I think some people on the left, the smarter ones, not the dumber ones are probably thinking something like that where they don't want their words to be used by bad actors further on down the line. And some are just idiots, but I think that might be the core of the regressive left issue that some people have. I think it's completely fair, even if that was not the issue for some people to want to focus on certain ideas, like if some people want to focus on Christianity and not criticize Islam, some people want to focus on Christian Islam and not focus on Christianity. Some people want to focus on religion as a whole and criticize all of that together. But my problem is not the people who say like, you know what, I don't know what the consequences of me criticizing Islam would be. I don't know if you guys could do that. I'm going to focus on Christianity. I don't have any issues with that, right? I have an issue with people that criticize Christianity but make excuses for Islam. Go out the way and saying, oh, Islam is not that bad. Islam is pro-woman. Islam is this and that. I don't like, this is worse. Like for example, even if you go, like some people saying like, oh, how could you be a feminist if you're not speaking about women in, I don't know, the Middle East. I'm like, well, maybe because they want to focus on women at a certain place. In your own backyard. Yeah, or even like, you know, you're just passionate about a certain cause and you want to focus. It's okay to focus. My issue is not with people that do not speak about women at other places. My issue is people who are fighting for women rights in some places but they're making excuses for anti-women policies and ideas in other places. If you do that, that's when I go after people and call them regressive leftists. That's awesome and very, very reasonable. So I applaud you on that. Okay, can we move into the- And then we can probably move into the Q and A. So thank you so much, gentlemen. And I want to mention folks, if you had not seen it both or in fact, all three of our guests are linked in the description. So if you'd like to hear more from them, you totally can, whether that be Brenton Armin or Kaye. So excited and reading slightly out of order because I specifically asked Kaye if I could read this particular super chat. Movie theory, thank you. That's right, it's right, Brenton, okay. Says- Movie theory, oh boy. Brandon, it's nice your wife's boyfriend let you debate tonight. It never gets old. I gotta say, I heard that before. I do, my wife does not have a boyfriend. I'd be okay with it if she did, if I liked him or something. What's also interesting is like, I don't know, like, that's kind of almost a hot thought if you kind of have like a, if you're into like S&M and stuff. And I won't rule on whether I'm into that or not. But yeah. Okay, it's time to go to the next one, we've written it up, thank you. Go ahead, Kaye. I have an actual legitimate question that does not regard Brenton's wife or her boyfriend. So far, if someone on call of duty hears an accent in their opponent's voice and wants to insult or offend their opponent to use a racial or religious slurs, is that person a racist? And should they be canceled? Do you wanna take that one or should I? Sorry, I didn't understand the question. Can you? I believe that she's asking if, on call of duty, if someone hears an accent in the voice of the opponent and want to insult them as so often you see. I think it depends on the intention. If the intention is to demean a whole group of people, then it's racist, again, it's really hard to read people's mind. But if somebody is using that as an insult the same way that they would use against it, I mean, they're, I don't know, they're probably just not a very nice person, I guess. I don't know, maybe it's just normal in gaming community, I'm not very involved in that. But I think if you see it as racist, if it's used against minorities, but you don't see it as racist, if it's used against everyone else, then you're being a bit biased unless you somehow know the intentions of the person doing it. Yeah, I'm gonna come at that from another direction. I'm gonna say intent is completely irrelevant. In just the same way as if someone steals my wallet, I don't actually care if deep down in their heart they consider themselves a thief and thought that they're, I just want my wallet back. So someone doing that, someone hears something in their voice and decides to use a racial slur to make somebody mad. Yeah, they did a racist thing. I don't know if they are a racist, but they should be corrected for doing the racist thing because that's a, that's an awful thing to do. And even if they don't intend to fence it, they don't intend to hurt somebody, it's like throwing a freaking grenade. Like somebody uses like the R word to call someone stupid. Just call them stupid because you don't need to throw a bunch of people with disabilities under a bus to call them stupid. Don't hurt other people just because you're mad at someone else. It's irresponsible behavior. Gotcha. We must keep moving. Just because we have a number of questions. I hate to do that to you guys, but just to try to get through as many as we can. Padme the cat. So I'll start from the bottom of the list, Kay. And you keep going from the top of the list and we'll meet in the middle. So Padme, thank you for your question said, the worst part of saying, quote, white, unquote, is that white people are totally more light orange or peach or something. Snow is white. Snow white is light orange. Thank you. Okay, go ahead, Jay. In my comic, Snow White Zombie Apocalypse, by the way, Snow White is Chinese. That is really progressive. I like that. I don't know if that was a question or do we need to respond to that? I think it was like a silly super chat. I mean, black people are not black eaters. I don't know. And brown people are not brown. Yellow people are not yellow. So I don't know. So all of this is stupid. All right, some guy says, if people respond more negatively to anti-black compared to anti-white bigotry, doesn't that prove society is systematically races against whites? No, we talked about that. There's a good logical reason for them to respond more negatively against anti-black bigotry than anti-white bigotry because anti-black bigotry can get people killed. It was a much larger and more present threat when bigotry is directed at minorities as opposed to when it's directed at the majority because the majority has not been systematically disenfranchised and disempowered and dehumanized. Right, so I mean, I somewhat agree that if you see the consequences of one action being bigger than the other one, then you fight it stronger. So the imbalance doesn't prove to me that there is a systemic racism. The fact that calling one of them out at all could get you in trouble. And even if it's not as bad, the fact that it is bad is not motivating institutions to go after it as something that is not acceptable. Just the outright denial of it or acting like it's not even there, that to me proves that, so it doesn't prove, sorry, suggests that there might be systemic racism out there. The imbalance of the fact that they're not the same I think that Brenton is right, that is just a fact. Next up, thank you for your question from Kestizo who says, question for the dude with the Hitler stash. Is systemic racism against whites possible in Japan? Is it pop, so I'm gonna assume cause I'm the only one with a mustache but like Hitler's mustache is this. I have like a full mustache. It gets a little darker underneath my nose but I think it's just because the sun doesn't hit it. Is it possible, is anti-white possible? We talked about this like in China. I mean, maybe it's possible. In fact, actually, I think Japan is pretty xenophobic. I just don't know if systemically they are biased against whites. I have a friend who lives in Japan and started a Food Not Bombs chapter over there and he never shuts up about it, but that's cool because Food Not Bombs is cool and living in Japan is cool. And he has mentioned that he has experienced some hostility and some bigotry based upon him being white and married to a Japanese woman and being a Gaijin. But I would have to know more about the like actual institutional structure of Japanese society if I can say that that's systemic anti-white racism or if it's just bigotry. Well, I mean, if the question is if it's possible then obviously it's possible whether or not it exists. I don't know, I haven't. But I agree with Brenton that I don't know either I have to actually see. A lot of people in the left chat are angry that I didn't push back harder against you. I'm saying that I'm a terrible white advocate. People are saying, why am I even defending white people if I'm not white myself? I would like- Watch it, they might be Nazis. I'm not kidding, they literally might be Nazis. It's true that some could be catered. I think we just lost Kate. Did we lose you, Kate? Oh no, bring her back. I like her. I think she'll be back any moment. She has absolutely phenomenal hair. I noticed that as well. But I was going to say, Brenton- Is that a gamer girl haircut, isn't it? See, I grew up doing like the goth scene. So like that undershave, that's like an industrial haircut. But yeah, what would you say in James? In the meantime, oh, that's right. I'm going to put the banner for the next week, Milo Yiannopoulos and Django's debate boy will be debating. Perhaps at some point, we'll have, who knows? It could be Brenton at some point, depending on if there will be a topic. It definitely could be. If there's a topic, yeah, I'd be interested. Wait, are we allowed to really take this debate and post it on the ACES? Can I post this on the ACES? No, yeah, yeah, dude. 100% you can, yes. I will link back here. Okay, great. If you can link my channel as well, I'd love that. Thanks, absolutely. And let's see. Two seconds, just changing. We were praising your haircut. We do have, let's see here. We were being extremely sexist by talking about how you look. Next, let's see. I don't know if that's sexist because a haircut is a choice. It's like, if you talk about like the way a person looks that they can't control, I feel like that's where it really gets into being sexist. We were complimenting your haircut. That's what we were doing. Well, thank you guys. My internet just decided to kick me out for no reason. But to be fair, you have really crap audio. Just about to shut up. It's a work in progress. But, don't insult someone's audio. I got my audio installed because I wanted to bought a better mic because it hurt my feelings. Our dearest friend, Brenton, did make a point that it is true, we do, yeah. Armin, I wouldn't be, I would keep in mind that some of these people in the chat would like more, it's true. I'm not saying all, but there might be one or two out there that might want more neo-Nazi types defending, you can say white people in this group. But one thing I was gonna bring up really quick. By the way, neo-Nazis, get the hell away from whiteness and white people. Like we don't want your help. We don't need your help. Go away. All you're doing is embarrassing everyone else. Well actually, I don't know. Is that, have you guys noticed that, I've noticed it more and more that identity politics, I'm like seeing people who may perhaps be neo-Nazis using identity politics type arguments. Of course, because that's all that is in Paul. When we, wait, it was always identity politics. Nazism was always identity politics. Oh, I didn't, okay. Because well, the way that I thought of it in terms of like the leftist, let me give you an example. We had Brenton debated Sargon and people were triggered and they were like, there's no trans person in this debate and I still have no apologies for it because we're happy to have trans people but we don't require that, we don't, for us it's like we'll have anybody but we don't require they be there for certain topics. Now, the idea is when Vos and Destiny, when they debated, nobody from the more left side gave me any trouble but the neo-Nazi type people were like, why is it you have white people, Vos and Destiny defending black people? Okay, so to be honest, to be fair to them, they're trying to say like you guys are hypocrites because you claim to want minority voices and you're not bringing minority voices but to counter that, they themselves seem to be hypocrites themselves because like a lot of people responded to this debate saying like, why is a non-white person speaking on behalf of white people? So they themselves are exactly like the people who they criticize. I also want to mention to Brenton, by the way, one thing that I think you should, you might appreciate is the fact that a lot of what I say has successfully changed the mind of a lot of what you call neo-Nazis because like for example, I make videos and content saying anti-racism is systemic and then a whole bunch of them get excited and come over and then I say, well, it's not as bad as anti-black racism. So I also have like videos saying Islam is worse than Nazism and they get excited and come over and then I say like, well, Islam is bad because the main victims of Islam are Muslims, most Muslims are great people because most Muslims are better than Islam and the best way to fight Islam is to befriend Muslims, demonizing Muslims. It does not achieve anything like so, you know. That's definitely true. I have a friend who was stationed in Afghanistan, like in the military. And like he pointed out that like they will play like Jihadists will play Donald Trump speeches to recruit like because demonizing Muslims in the West makes them then think that they, it makes them feel justified in attacking the West. But what I'm saying is part of what I do is not to go after just the woke, I don't know, left but also to go after, you know, a lot of these far right narratives by getting them excited into what we're saying but then also exposing them to maybe some, to looking at these things differently. Well, you're also, you're doing something that's really important in that you are acknowledging their pain and their perception and their, because too many people on the left will not acknowledge the kind of pain and oppression that some of the people on the right feel. And if you don't acknowledge what they're feeling, if you don't acknowledge where it's coming from, they won't believe you and they won't trust you. That's one of the reasons why in my opening statement I said 99% of white people are systemically oppressed. It's not on their race but they're still systemically oppressed. So like there is truth in that. It's just they've been suckered by fascism and by bad actors to believe a stupid inverted version of the world and they've been tricked into essentially joining what is a death cult. So, you know, thank you for getting a few people out of a death cult. That's really important. I mean that very seriously. We, I hate to do this. We've got a lot of questions to get through still and we're, we're late. Yeah, go ahead. Let's see. Kay, I think that yours might have been the next one. All right. So Lily R.O. says define far left. Yes. James is soy cool. So I don't know if she meant to call you so cool or if she was calling you soy boy. We are bringing the soy meme back. Okay, good. Define far left. So here, if you think about the political sector and I really think that the, like that X, Y there's problems with it, but the sort of the X, Y graph from economic socialism to laissez-faire and authoritarian to libertarian is a really important way to think about it because the right left spectrum is that's based on the French revolution and like where people sat in the French parliament. It doesn't really make sense with modern politics but to say what I would consider to be the far left would be someone who advocates either classical anarchism, a version of classical anarchism, Marxism or a form of non-Marxist socialism. So they have to be someone that wants to eliminate capitalism and attack the institution of private property in one way or another. If they do not do that, they are not on the far left. Now there might be liberals in the Democratic party who are left of conservatives but I would really consider them more centrist or if you really wanna, if you wanna take Joe Biden and put Joe Biden on like the world thing, he's way, way far on the conservative side and the Democratic party is controlled by the most conservative elements of it which is why they like spiked Bernie Sanders who ironically Bernie Sanders, if he were a European politician wouldn't be saying anything controversial and would just be like smack dab as a centrist. Yeah, he's a capitalist. I would, by the way, I would like to have you on our channel, Atheist Republic, to discuss some of these ideas like communism and anarchism. Yeah, okay, great. Yeah, I'd love to. Guys, follow both of our channels in the description because we're gonna have some exciting discussions after. Yeah, this'll be fun because like, yeah, I can talk about anarchism, communism. I can talk about Buddhism if you want to because I'm both an atheist and religious. So. Yeah, nice. And then we will move to the next one as iPhone musings gives an unusual super chat, says I extend my hand in marriage to Kaye. Very nice Kaye. Unfortunately, I feel already married. Yeah. Oh, no, you shouldn't tell them that. You should build a simp army online. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. This is, Susanna is in the, Atheist Republic CEO is in the live chat. She's building her own personal simp army. It's very effective. You have to hide that ring. You keep building your life following. Yeah. Yeah. And I am also married, but I'm polyamorous. Yeah, you could. You might have a chance since you guys could simp me. There's a boyfriend and a husband. Boyfriend, husband, girlfriend. I don't give a crap. I hope my husband's not watching this. Next up, Andrew Weber. Thank you for your question. I was talking to chat, not UK, but sure. Andrew says, my deepest respects to our men for having the courage to defend my people. You are a truly noble and honorable man. Oh, well, okay. I just want to say that I do recommend not looking as white people as your people. I do suggest that, you know, not dividing each other into tribes based on things that are not that meaningful. I mean, saying my people based on skin color to me is as interesting and valuable as saying my people based on your hair color, right? I think when it comes to my people, I think we should consider everybody that lives on this planet as our people. I think that would be a healthier way to go forward and look at everything. I agree 100% with that. And also like white people, we really are not that similar. Like there was a huge difference between like a frickin' Scott and like somebody from Scandinavia. And they're even really close to each other. I mean, come on guys, we're all in this together. Like we only have one planet, so like we really need to save this planet and you know, going about like dividing ourselves based on these, you know. Yeah, but again. Let's acknowledge that he is still praising you, so. No, I know, I know, am I coming off as ungrateful for a praise, sorry. No, you're not. No, you're not. He's probably a Nazi. So many different white people. Think of Brenton and how he different he is from all of us. I'm like the whitest frickin' white person out there. Like my frickin' my great grandfather, like I'm from the Caucasus Mountains like or the Carpathian Mountains. Like my grandfather, like when that weirdo who invented whiteness was holding that skull of the Georgian that he thought was like super beautiful, that was probably my like great-grandfather's skull or great-grandmother's skull or whatever. So I like outrank all the other white people. All right. My question is from Rodney Faulberg, says Brenton. Powerful opening statement, but it's flawed. In order to live, animals have to hunt. In order to live, people have to work. Socialism contradicts nature itself. Have you read Rich Dad, Poor Dad or watched ALUX videos? I have no idea what those two things are, but and I have heard this argument that nature require, that life requires struggle and that very much is true. We do have to work and working is part of the essence of what it is to be a person. But what socialists take issue with and especially libertarian socialists like myself is not the fact that we have to work. It's the fact that we have to work for other people under conditions that those people set and have no option to work for ourselves, no realistic option to work for ourselves. So, again, I don't have a problem with working. I actually love working, but I have a problem with working for a capitalist. Gotcha. And I'm going to send over the last three super chats over to Kay right now, but I'm gonna read the first one just to keep it moving. This person, let me just see if I can find their name. Very embarrassing. Turbo, thanks for your question said. Brenton, racially based affirmative action targets ethnic minorities. It is in a way, systematic racism against whites. Would you support class-based affirmative action considering it would not discriminate against poor whites? I would support class-based affirmative action and we have class-based affirmative action not well enough, but yeah. And in fact, it would prop because black people are overrepresented in poverty conditions, that would actually raise up a lot of black people without specifically basing it on race. I think a class-based approach would be better. That said, I don't think that affirmative action that targets minorities to try to get them into higher positions within society is necessarily bad. And I also don't think it is necessarily racist because again, if an institution has 10 slots and you take nine of those slots are going to white people and one of those slots are saying we're gonna put a minority in this slot. You haven't really discriminated against any white people. You haven't said a white person can't get into that institution. All you've done is you've made the competition a little stiffer among all of those white people. But also think about if there are nine spots that go to white people and one spot that is specifically for a brown person or a person of color, how much competition does that person have to deal with compared to the average white person? It's a lot more. Gosh. I don't think that when you're looking at hiring people, you should consider, I mean, I think if you look... I think you can't, but... Yeah, I mean, yeah. But I also think like looking at, I agree with more of what you said earlier. It needs to be class-based, looking at dealing with poverty as a whole and the fact that black people are hurt by it more will automatically target help them even more without you having to focus on race. I think when it comes to like looking at boardrooms and trying to come up with the balance of black and white and women and men... Yeah, that's weird. Yeah, those are treating the symptoms rather than the causes. And I think it actually distracts us from addressing the causes. Yeah. I mean, there was a joke. Oh, okay. Let's move pretty quick. Just because we have a number of... Problem with boardrooms is there's too many of them and not enough of them are on fire. Not that they're not rainbow enough. All right. My next one is from Gabriel Kay. And I must have missed this part of the session whenever I got kicked out. It says, clear your own gate. What the fuck? So a woman in the USA being upset for someone holding the door for her is more important than women being stoned for adultery. Get your bourgeois liberal principles together. Okay. Talkin' about. Yeah, I think this is directed at me. But I wanna say, can I quickly say that people can focus on small problems and big problems at the same time or exclusively? Like if that's the standard, okay. Again, if that is your standard, then everybody has to just figure out what's the worst thing that is hurting humanity right now and nobody can speak about anything other than that right now. Like, I don't understand. You know, you could, like, what are you gonna do next? Like, if you went like, oh my God, there's so many potholes in our streets, let's go for the data. Like, really? You're worried about the potholes in your street? What about people that have no rose at all? Like, like, that is like. What about us? Yeah. Starving people in China would be happy to have that. And what I- You must, I hate to do this, Brandon, but just- No, but Brenton didn't say anything. I took his, this was- Oh God, sorry about that. Yeah, yeah, don't worry about that. Okay, so- That was anti-white racism right there, but go on, sorry. Yeah. So, what this person said, can you read that again, Kay, because my brain got- It says, clear your own gauge. So, a woman in the USA being upset for someone holding the door cooker is more important than women being stoned for adultery. Okay, this is adorable almost, because it shows a complete misunderstanding of what women have to deal with, like, when it comes to sexism, like, in this country. And I remember being shocked about this. Like, I remember when all stuff was coming out with like Harvey Weinstein and all this stuff. I was like, did I miss a meeting or something, guys? Like, I've been a guy my whole life. I've never done or thought anything like this. And, but apparently there's a bunch of us that are freaking awful. And the thing is, is that I was really shocked when I went to sit on a jury, because they asked the people at the jury, like, have you ever been the victim of a violent crime to see if they would be negatively biased because this was a criminal trial. And so many of the women raised their hand and won after another, after another, admitted to being raped. So when you want to talk about like sexism in the United States and misogyny in the United States, it's not getting mad because somebody didn't hold open a door for you. It's being raped, it's being beaten, it's being killed. And if you, and the actual thing is like, women being stoned to death for honor killings, it's really not that different from women being murdered by their spouses for sleeping with another man or being seen to sleep with another man. Next up, the optimistic pessimist, thanks for your question, said correlation does not equal causation. We don't know that systemic racism is a causal factor for racial disparities or inequalities. It's just one of many hypotheses for racial differences in outcomes. Well, okay, so if you consider a form of systemic racism to be racism by outcome, that would include, like that's a reason why that we include that part of the definition, right? So if, again, so this is the difference between racism of the gaps and racism by outcome. So racism of the gap is like a fallacy that people keep blaming things on racism without actually proving that this is because racism. They see disparities everywhere and they think like, oh, this is racism, racism, racism. And when they do that, they actually talking about intentional explicit form of racism and they have no proof for it. That is uncalled for, that is unjustified, but it is justified to look at the outcomes and say like, okay, we control for all the variables, crime rates, population, wealth, access to lawyers. After adjusting for all of that, the system is still producing bias against a group of people. If you say like, okay, we don't know if this is, this bias is because of explicit form of racism. It might not be because there's no way that any study could control for all variables. It might not be because of any form of explicit racism, but the very fact that all justifiable form of variables controlled for is still giving you rate bias outcomes means that your system is racist against a group of people, even if it's not intended to be so, right? So when you say it doesn't prove that it's racist, well, the definition, based on the definition of what it means to be racist by outcome, it is racist by outcome. I think this person is talking about the explicit or intentional form of racism. And yes, they're right. It doesn't prove that. Gotcha. I would say, if that was all we were saying, yeah, but I mean, there's mountains of data, like a good example being that blacks are not only, the blacks and whites use and sell drugs at the same rates, but black people are punished worse and are more often than not prosecuted as opposed to white people. There's, the other thing is that black people are both charged with murder most often and exonerated of murder charges most often, like seven times greater. For the same crimes. Yeah, yeah. For the exact same crimes. So anti-black bigotry within the system and anti-insistent, like that's irrefutable and there's mountains and mountains of data and it's not just correlation and causation. Gotcha. And thanks so much for your question or I think this might be that last one. If you got that last one from Gabrielle Kaye. Kaye, that one would be for you. Okay, so Gabrielle Kaye comes back at least under Brett and his dystopian communism, all is oppressed equally and starves equally. I mean, I'm an anarcho-communist. So how exactly is anything oppressed? There's no state. So what is exactly going to do this? And you can actually look at examples of like real world applications of anarcho-communist principles in Rojava, in Shepas, in the Ukraine, in the Ukraine free territory and in Catalonia, Spain, when it was run by anarchists for three years. And there was not this horrific repression. This is anti-Soviet propaganda put out by the US government in the 1950s that you're being affected by. Gotcha. And Spider, the Atiyo, thanks for your super-sicker. Appreciate the support. And there is another question, another critic of you, Brenton. So... Bring it on, come on, let's hear this. A fear, thank you for your question, said, why is Brenton allowed to cover up for racist by redefining words? Stalin used this same technique to make people disappear. Wait, wait. Stalin redefined words to make people disappear? That's what you're going to say? So first off, like the actual Soviet purges were not Stalin redefining words. What it was was Stalin's paranoia. It wasn't just Stalin. Just the ruling class blamed it all on Stalin because he was dead. And none of them wanted to be prosecuted for all the crazy bullshit that went on. I mean, like really, if you look deeply into the Soviet purges, they're horrifying, but it has nothing to do with redefining words. Here's what happened. You didn't even bother to read 1984. You heard someone talking about 1984 and talking about Newspeak, which was limiting the language, not redefining it, but actually eliminating the ability to express things with it. And you said, oh, 1984 was about words, Stalin words, therefore redefining words is Stalinism. It's the most idiotic point that I've ever made. You should be ashamed of yourself and everyone is dumber for having heard that. Very sassy tonight. I do want to address the redefinitions of racism. I think it's okay to add to the definition of racism based on its practical use. So I'm okay with having the explicit traditional form of racism, that definition there and adding these new definition because of the purpose, because of the use that they have. What I don't like is that people who add this new definition and they want to take away the old, like I'm not okay with replacing the definition. I'm okay with the adding definitions. So for people who say that the explicit form of racism, it's not racism at all. If it's systemic, like they are redefining words. I think it's both of them are useful. I think keep the old one, call it the explicit racism, add these new definitions. They do have practical uses. Gotcha. And then there was a question I sent over to you, Kay on Twitter. Another one from Gabriel Kay, because he seems to be a fan of yours, Brenton. Brenton, you need to listen to George Carlin. You are his not my problem, typical liberal. I love George Carlin. Are you kidding? Like George Carlin is like the go-to guy. In fact, my favorite thing about George Carlin is he has a great bit where he like describes toxic masculinity perfectly without ever using the phrase toxic masculinity. Like look up his, it's called just Google like George Carlin, the male disease. It's the same thing that all these like highly academic feminists were coming up with, but he actually like expressed it on his own really quickly. Carlin's brilliant. Gotcha. And SpongeBob SquarePants, thank you for your super sticker of support. Appreciate it. Then Kay, if you had seen that last one in the live chat, if you were, had you seen that one from the optimist pessimist? I did, but it just appeared on me. Okay. What I'll do is. I do want to acknowledge all the 1350s that I'm seeing in the love damage, if you have time. I will send it over to you Kay. And in the meantime, I will read another one from Samuel, glad to hear from you Samuel. It's always a pleasure to have you said to Brenton. Actually, this one's kind of like a nice, easy going, like it's a good way to end. So maybe what we'll do is Kay, if you want to read that one from the optimistic pessimist. I'd also give me a chance to respond to the 1350s if there's time at the end. Gosh. Let them respond, we need to respond. Sure, we have time. What's up? No, okay. So a lot of people are missing the point when it comes to 1350, they're like, okay, the black people in the United States are 13% of the population, but they are responsible for 50% of the crime. You know, all the studies that Brenton also mentioned, when they are showing that there is a bias in the justice system and the police system against black people, of course they are adjusting for the crime rates. They all these, like, do you really think that the researchers that are their entire career is dependent, is based on controlling for as many variables as they possibly can to see what the actual reasons for the things. Look at these studies, they're showing that even after they adjust for the crime rates, they're still bias in the system after they take that variable into account, okay? So look at the studies, guys. Gotcha. Yeah, well, not just that, but also it's just a miscarriage and a misunderstanding of statistics. 50% of the population, the average American has one breast and one testicle. Like that's a statistical fact. It's the same thing. We must move to the question. No, just one last thing. Also it's your response. But we do have a list of questions and it seems that you're addressing, hold on a second. It seems that you're addressing things that you just randomly notice in the chat. And so it's like, but we do have people that have paid super chats to get their questions out. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Next up. Okay, so. Go ahead. We have one from the optimistic pessimists that says, Brenton, I wasn't denying that the system is racist. I would say the evidence of a racist system does not prove blacks are doing worse than whites because of racism. IE, there could be biological differences. I mean, there could be, but you would have to demonstrate that. And we've actually have evidence that there are no reasonable biological differences between blacks and whites. Race is literally skin deep. And humans are one of the least biologically diverse species on this planet. All of us have a single common ancestor from about a thousand years ago. Literally everyone that lived is descended that lives today is descended from that one guy. And between 50 and 500 BC, everyone in the world who passed on their genetics is either the direct descendant of everyone in the world now or the descendant of no one. We're all a direct descendant of Confucius. We're all a direct descendant of Cleopatra. We're all a direct descendant of like, I think Julius Caesar. If you lived in that certain time and you passed on your genetics, they're your direct ancestor. So race does not exist genetically. Can I respond to that as well? Sure. I just want to acknowledge that so far there has not been any evidence that shows that there's any significant differences, but we do need to prepare people in case there is like data sometimes showing there's some significant differences because I don't think that us treating people the same should be dependent on the fact that they're all the same. I think we should treat people the same even if there does show some one day we prove that there is some biological differences. I think our rights should- That's a good point. Bakunin would agree with you actually. Next up, thank you for that. Gabrielle Kay says to Brenton. I was born in communism, you know nothing. I mean, what communism were you born in? I don't think I was advocating the type of communism that wherever you were born that you're mad about. Communism as in a stateless, classless society stateless, classless, moneyless society based on the common ownership of money and the distribution of resources from each according to his ability to each according to their need has never existed on the planet. Now I gave examples of anarchism, social anarchist socialism in practice but that's not communism. Communism is an ideal that has not been reached. Gotcha. Now, if you're like in the former USSR I'm sure that sucked, you know? And I apologize for that but that's not what I'm talking about. So don't straw man me. Gotcha. And I just sent another one over to UK if you got that one. Did it's from Turbo? Could Brenton please clarify a discriminating against whites with affirmative action it doesn't meet the standards of racism? Discriminating, it doesn't meet the standards because racism as we're talking about like systemic racism involves the state and the perception of like authorities like the military and the police, you know, a judge sentencing you more harshly because you're white, not someone else getting an opportunity because they're not white. I must say I've seen a lot of definitions of systemic racism. I've not, this is the first time I've seen somebody mentioned that this only can come from the state. Yeah, well it's not so much, it's generated by the state and sovereign power. This is, I mean, it's kind of cutting edge research. I think it only, you know, came out in like 2007. So it's one of the more recent definitions of racism and people going into it. Also, you kind of have to have an anarchist critical framework to fully understand it and liberals really get very uncomfortable when anyone criticizes the state because they like their institutions. They like their little world that they've built. I mean, to be fair, I like them too, but we could debate that later. Yeah, yeah, dude, that's fine to talk about, yeah. Samuel Powell, for the last question of the night that we have here, appreciate it. Samuel says, this one, we got so many for Brenton tonight. But Dory, this one at least isn't attacking. This one is, they said, to Brenton, what was the most difficult challenge along the Appalachian Trail? Oh geez, that's a huge, there's so many great things. So I would say the biggest physical challenge of the Appalachian Trail was like when I hit the White Mountains in New Hampshire, because I started down south and it was coming north and you start off and you're like hurting it, like you can barely do like 10, 11, 12 miles a day. Then you get to this point where you're like basically professional athlete level shape and you're doing like, you can do 15, 16 miles a day easily and like you, if you want to, like I did a 22-mile day to get to a bar in time so I could have a couple of cheap beers. When I hit the White Mountains, I was in tip-top shape and suddenly like a 15-mile day felt like a 20-mile day. A 20-mile day was impossible. Meanwhile, while all of this was going on, not only was I having some of the hardest hiking that I ever had to do, but I was getting rained on and hailed on nonstop for weeks, like my feet looked like golems when I got to the end of that after a week. And it started raining when I got to Vermont and did not stop until I got to Maine. So yeah, yeah, the Whites are just like, that's like the boss or like the mini-boss. The boss itself is Katahdin at the end. But yeah, that was the biggest physical challenge. That is really interesting. And want to say, folks, want to say first things for all your questions, just hanging out with us tonight in the live chat. Thanks so much, mods, for whether it be spam or hate speech, whatever it is. We appreciate all of your efforts. And most of all, want to say thanks so much. Brenton and Armin and Kay, it's been a pleasure to have you. And especially Brenton and Armin being in the hot seat, debating these issues, pleasure to have you. And one quick reminder, everybody, their links are all in the description. We have one last question from Turbo, who just fired a super chat in, said, you can end the stream, no worries, I just want to point out that the chat, to the chat that public universities are a component of the state. I think it's a dialogue they have going on in the chat. Yeah, I mean, public universities are created by the government and funded by tax dollars. They're not the state, but like, at least not in the definition I gave of it. But yeah, I mean, government isn't just evil. Gotcha. Can I say something? Not in response to that, how much time do I have? And I just want to quickly say that to people that look, like we were, I mean, even if you didn't, if me or Brenton didn't change your opinion on anything, I think the more important point here is that we are able to have friendly, civil discussions about some of the most heated topics out there. And I think that is even more, sometimes, sometimes even more important than changing the other person's opinion, because it seems like these disagreements are being used for a lot of people to hate each other. And these debates, the great thing about them is not just to convince people that which side is right or which side is wrong, but it's also to show people that disagreements doesn't necessarily need to lead to people hating each other. It's possible to have friendly disagreements. Couldn't agree more. Love your philosophy. And that is absolutely true. Folks, we hope you feel welcome here. No matter what lock of life you're from, we mean that gay, straight, Christian atheist, like everybody, we could name everybody, and we just wanna let you know we really do hope you feel welcome. So with that, we hope you keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable and one last thanks to our guests, Brenton, Armin, and Kay. Thank you guys. With that, take care, folks, and have a great day. Hopefully we will see you back here as we have a couple of awesome ones coming up this week in addition. So take care, and we'll see you next time.