 Today we have a Bosch and Sargon and they are debating Socialism, Immigration, and Transgenderism, and we're starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate as we have two major heavyweights in the YouTube political debate world with us today. Heavy hitters, folks. This is going to be a lot of fun. So if this is your first time here, by the way, consider hitting that subscribe button as we've got a lot more debates coming up that we are very excited about, including, you'll see on the bottom right of your screen this March in person. We're going to have Destiny and Bosch crossing swords. That's going to be a big one likely in Los Angeles. Going to be a lot of fun and that will be streamed here at Modern Day Debate. With that, want to let you know folks, our guests here today have their links in the description. So if you're listening and you're like, hmm, I like that. Good news, their links are conveniently located just below, just down there. See, and this is going to be a great one, folks. If you have any questions, just shoot them into the live chat. And if you can tag me with at Modern Day Debate, it'll help me see each question. Super chats will go to the top of the list for the Q&A and also give you a chance to make a comment toward one of the speakers. However, they, of course, would get the chance to respond. And I would love to ask you, please, if you could keep it as kind as possible to our debaters, definitely challenge your ideas. But if you can, if you got those personal attacks that you got around in the chamber ready to fire, you're firing at me. I don't mind, but we do want to honor our guests as we appreciate them being on Modern Day Debate today. So with that, this is just civil discourse, folks. No timed sections, just low stakes, easy going convo. We'll see. Let's see. It's going to be a good one, folks. So with that, I do want to open this up to everybody. So thanks so much. Oh, goodness gracious. I just realized the names. Thanks so much. The live chat let me know that the names are flopped on the on the watch page. So thanks. I'm switching it over right now. Good eye, everybody. And with that, very embarrassing. Okay, with that, gentlemen, thanks so much again for being here. And I have got it swapped. So we are all set and ready. The floor is all yours, gentlemen. If there's a particular issue, either of you, especially wanted to bring up. Yeah, I feel like it's just my personal opinion. If we're going to be discussing any broadstanding economic or social issues, introducing socialism and capitalism seemed like a good way to get started with that, don't you think? I'm totally deferring to you guys. So I'm happy with it. Carl, if you're good with it. Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you're asking me. So say, oh, yes, do you mind that I'll be getting with socialism and capitalism? No, it's fine. All right. If you don't mind, I'd like to take the first the first opening. So with regards to social or anything, I'm terribly sorry. I didn't I didn't prepare a sort of an interest speech. I just figured I didn't either. It's it's all off the cuff. That's fine. Nice and casual. So with regards to socialism, people, a lot of images get conjured in people's minds when we discuss socialism. When I think of socialism, I think of simple, elegant market socialism, a simple solution to democratize the workplace in our country. Of course, I'm from America. That's what I usually talk about. But any country, I think, could be a fair beneficiary of this policy. And the reason for that is I mean, it's breaking up online. I think your connection might be a bit. I think it might be connection a little bit robotic at the moment. So can you hear me? Yeah, I think it's my connection to you. Yeah, I'm just closing down browser windows just in case that. We're OK. Gotcha. I've got open maybe it's having some kind of effect on it. So I'm just going to put everything down. Do you want to take a moment to re-say it around? I think of socialism and it's not that. Well, I might be right. One thing that sometimes I defer to your suggestions, James, if we sometimes what happens is if we have to, it's OK to turn off the video and that might kind of help it catch up. And as long as people are all here to hear the ideas, I think, even though we don't get to see your face, getting to hear those. Yeah, no, I think it'll be fine. I think it's because I have literally thousands of tabs open because you know how it is. We got because I'll drag a tab into a French window and then open tabs in that. And I guess messy. Sorry. Well, I heard what I think of as socialism. And so if you could pick it up from there, of course, of course. So hopefully that works. If not, we can limit bandwidth here by cutting video, whatever the case may be. When I think about socialism, a bunch of things get conjured in people's heads of Vuvuzela, Stalin, Mao Zedong, you know, Ho Chi Minh. What I'm talking about very simply is the democratization of the workplace, the publicization or the deprivatization of firms. Essentially, if you work at a place, you have collective ownership of that place. This is essentially a worker co-op. This isn't some, you know, vast theoretical economic implementation. Well, let me ask you a question then. Of course. Why should anyone agree to that? Well, it would be in the best interest of the vast majority of the people in this country because it would lead to a change in the power hierarchy between workers and owners. Well, I disagree, because as we saw last time, half of the businesses in your country are small businesses. What does that have to do with anything? Well, that means that they're just small guys like me who can employ a few guys as well, a few people as well. And what you're saying is it's actually as soon as I employ anyone, they are a part owner of what I'm doing, which means I'm not going to be inclined to employ anyone. For one, the fact that there are a certain number of small businesses in the country has nothing to do with the statistic of how many workers work for small businesses. It may well be that 50 percent of the businesses in this country are small, but 90 percent of the workers in this country work for larger businesses. Larger businesses will, of course, have more employees. Even so, small businesses are still... I don't think that's true. I don't think that's true at all. But even if that was true, even if that was true, it doesn't matter, does it? Because the point is it's not just for someone to simply... Because they are given a job, they voluntarily take a job to take ownership of something they don't have ownership and they're not entitled to. So your original point was that the prevalence of small businesses was in any way relevant to this. Apparently 60 million Americans work for small businesses, which is approximately 25 percent of the workforce, 30 percent of the workforce. Again, though, whether or not... How big do you think the American workforce is? Well, we can check. Yeah, I think we should. One hundred and fifty seven million. OK, so that would be... Yeah, so about 35 percent then work for small businesses. And a small business is defined as, let me see. Less than five hundred, was it? Less than five hundred workers. Yeah. OK, I don't know about you, but I think a firm with five hundred workers is one in which there is a significant disparity between the number of owners and workers at that given firm. Every firm has a significant disparity between owners and workers, Vorsch. I agree, which is why worker co-ops are the best interest. I agree. The number of small businesses out there is completely irrelevant to my point. No, it's the number of workers that each business employees is actually irrelevant to your point. The only businesses that could conceivably have a case against worker co-ops would be ones with two or three people working there. And I agree with you, those businesses, for bureaucratic reasons, probably don't need to be made worker co-ops. But the vast majority of Americans do not work for places that only employ two or three people. The vast majority of Americans work for large firms where they don't know the owner of the establishment. That's OK. OK, all right. That's not a state of affairs that needs rectifying by socialism. OK, so the initial point you brought up about small businesses was completely irrelevant than to worker co-ops. It was a complete pivot. It had nothing to do with the central point. It means you're going to kill a third at the very least. You'll kill a third of your businesses because I'm not wearing something. If they are entitled to a part ownership of what of my business. That's why I don't know. Well, I don't know what we're talking about killing. I'm not a worker co-op third of the jobs in the United States. Yeah, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. So a firm with 500 people would be killed if it was made law that businesses be cooperatively owned. You do realize you wouldn't be making the hiring decisions if you own such a firm in a worker co-op, right? That would be democratically decided by the workers. Do you know how worker co-ops? Yes, but if I if I owned a business and a bunch of people were suddenly going to be one day my employees and the next day my co bosses of the business, I might have different opinions on who cares what your opinions are. Everyone's opinions, no matter if it's a democracy. Yes, I know. But what I'm saying is my opinion will generally reflect the trend amongst small business owners because they have the same right. Yes, owners, but most people work, they do not own. And I'm interested in improving the well-being of most people in this country. Most people in this country at different times in their lives, they do different things. Most people in this country do not own businesses of 500 workers or more. And they never will under your plan. Yes, good. Much in the same way that I am not particularly fond of slave owning as a trade nor lords and serfs. I think that moving towards an economic system, which doesn't have the vast majority of people made serfient to the business interests of an incredibly small minority, it's a great way to move forward. I'm populist like that. I want to improve the life of most people. Voluntarily exchanging your labor for money and exchange for whatever labor you you're being asked to do justifies stealing the businesses of half of the business. Do you think taxes are theft, Carl? No. OK. Then you agree that the government has the right appropriating their property because of your taxes. Yeah, you're appropriating their property with taxes. Do you think taxes are theft? Do you do you not understand that you're not on for taxes asking for shares? Do you think there is a fundamental difference? Don't ask my question. Don't ask the question. Answer that question. Do you understand that redistributing the ownership of a business to other people, whether they work there or not, is not just so it's not theft to take millions of dollars from an entity or firm, but it is theft then to reassign. Wait, because you don't believe taxes are theft. Why are you even asking questions? Why can't you just answer my question? What are you? I'm asked. So wait, wait. Yes or no. Do you believe taxes are theft? I'm the one asking the question. You can't you earlier said no. So I'm going to assume that's what you mean. I do not believe taxation is theft. Wonderful. I'm so glad we agree on that, Carl. I agree. OK. I think that to the host. Look, man, I'm not I'm not interested in debating with for backing out already. I'm just asking you for a simple comparison already being disingenuous by asking you if you believe tax is that Carl know exactly where this goes. Well, Carl already not any what I'm saying. You are not listening and engaging with what I'm saying. Carl is immoral to take right. See you later. How about we do this? Right. How about we do this? If I'm explaining something, can we mute Vorsch? I just asked if you believe taxes are theft. Vorsch, I started talking and then you started interrupting me. Like you don't believe taxes are theft. I'm not wasting my time with you, Vorsch. I've got a video to edit. OK, I wouldn't mind getting an early night. Dude, it's it's OK if this was too much for you. When I'm talking to another day, we can have a conversation. But if not, I'm not having a repeat of last time for us. Do you understand? No, no, no, you sound fine. We can take a second to what we'll do is let's just take a moment. I promise Vosh will come right back to you. But if you're if we just have this question come out from Carl and then Vosh, I promise, will come right back to you and just kind of I'll be strict about kind of moving in to be sure that no one stops anybody before they're done. In fact, if you guys are willing, we could even try this. Once in a while, we do this is if you're willing to if we wait for each other to say done with that point. Oh, yeah, sure. No, I love civil debate. I love giving everyone a chance to speak their minds. Carl, please take all the time in the world. I will, Vosh. Thankfully, I don't need very much time. Basically, just because you work somewhere doesn't give you an entitlement to be a part owner of the thing. It's someone else's labor that got the business into the condition that it was when they were ready to be able to hire you. You voluntarily accepted the job. You've got an entitlement here. You're just a grasping greedy socialist who, frankly, I think is afraid of the fact that some parts of life require hodgepins. That's just it. OK, done. Thanks so much. And then go ahead, Vosh, we'll give you a chance to defend. So I will ignore the baseless ad hominem there. I don't know why Carl felt fit to include that. But I'm a utilitarian. I like instituting social change that will benefit people and make life better for most people. Sometimes passing laws is a part of that. There have been many points in the glorious tradition of Western political theory that we have, sometimes even violently, instituted massive paradigm shifts in how we operate our government. The transition away from monarchy, for example, was not a peaceful one. I'm not advocating for violence. I'm only saying that far more severe things have been done than a law being passed to make cooperative ownership, you know, sort of mandated in firms of a certain size in this country than what I'm advocating for here to be perfectly specific. Carl, you're just oh, you voluntarily chose to work here. Oh, such and such. This could be used to defend indentured slavery or indentured servitude. My apologies. This could be used to defend. God, child, child labor in coal mines. You could use this to defend all sorts of miserable things. I don't see fit to consign the majority of Americans or whatever country we're talking about to a miserable, wretched, poverty-laced existence just because the prior laws made it such that it was legal for them to be put in that situation or they will starve is, of course, that's always the bludgeon we're hit with. You know, if you don't work, you live a miserable subsistence existence. I want to make life better. Worker co-ops seem to make life better for most Americans. But thanks so much, Wash. We'll kick it back to Carl. If worker co-ops made life better for most Americans, why aren't they the overwhelming business model? I don't agree that the I mean, you can't just say the transition away from monarchy, Europe is still ruled by monarchs and all of the revolutions of the 20th century were horrific bloodbaths that failed. So I don't think that citing them as, oh, we can do this because they did it. I actually think that's a warning away from doing that. Passing a law to have cooperative ownership of businesses, that will have significant effect from the 48 percent of businesses in the country that are owned by people who don't actually want to have their property stolen from them. Indentured servitude, child labor, etc., etc. are not voluntary. They are coercive. I can't believe you didn't know that, but that's fine. And there will always be people who are less well off than others, because that is the default state of freedom. However, that doesn't have to be the only state. There are ways that people can get their way out of it. And there are even things that we can do to incentivize and help people be able to pull themselves out of poverty. But if there's one thing I've learned in my life that is you cannot give people prosperity. And so taking from some and hypothetically giving to others is simply going to end up with, honestly, I think it's just going to end up as a repeat, as socialism always does. It's the same old cycle, done. Thanks so much. Yeah, that was actually really impressive. I actually, there were so many stupid points that were made there. I actually had to write them down because after the first two, I thought like, OK, I have the answers to these. And then I had to, OK, so first of all, so I like Carl's suggestion that there isn't an inherently coercive element to the need to work in our society. You suggest that child labor was coercive. I don't see how they didn't have to work. They were prompted into working due to the financial need of the family. That's why people work today. The coercion element is equally present in both of those cases, but we agreed nonetheless that somebody should, you know, maybe step in and prevent children from being able to work because it makes society better. You pointed out just a quick, am I muted? Carl's cam froze for me. I didn't know if that was the system. No, I think Carl just closed off his cam just to save man with. Secondly, Carl asks, why isn't socialism already done if it's the best system? Well, the most ethical and effective system doesn't just magically come into place. Capitalism is better right now than monarchal mercantile capitalism was. And it's better than the systems that existed before then. But capitalism didn't just magically appear at the beginning of human existence. You know, we had to work for that just because the system is good, doesn't mean it already exists. If that was the case under Sargon's logic, then feminism wouldn't exist because he believes that feminism detracts from the sort of best state of society. He doesn't feel it's necessary. If he doesn't feel it's necessary, why does it exist? Well, obviously, because things are a little more complicated than that. And I'll leave it off on one point, which is Sargon said, freedom means inequality. If you have freedom, you will invariably have inequality. And there will always be inequality, of course, of many types. There's no denying that. However, I think it's important to point out that this is an incredibly disingenuous and blasé way to hand wave the suffering of millions. And billions, maybe you can't just excuse people's suffering because, you know, suffering will always exist. You always have to try to make the world a better place. And that's my. Thanks so much. Of course. I think Carl's still with us. Carl, are you still with us? Did he disconnect? His name does still show. Maybe his caption. Yeah, sorry. I'm here. That's all right. No problem, sir. My look, my son's been playing up all evening and he's just my wife just knocked on the door. Oh, sorry. I'll be back in five. You bet. OK. James, wait, he'll be right back. So I said he said he'd be back in five to ten. Can I can I say something to you? You bet. I think your haircut looks fantastic today. Did you get it done recently? It means a lot. Thank you very much. Yes, I recently used to spike it. But now I'm kind of like trying to do the comb over some more distinguished look. I've finally just given into the fact that I'm thirty three. I think you're looking down. I'll be I'll be lucky. Listen, I know people say I look thirty five. I'm twenty five. If I look as good as you when I'm thirty three. OK, I'm going to be counting my lucky stars. Let me tell you that's nice. That's the nicest thing I've ever heard. I always hear that I look old for my age, which is hard. It's kind of like, well, it's like distinguished, but at the same time, I don't want to look old. But I think you look serious for your age. I don't think you look old for your age. You're a PhD candidate, aren't you? I'm working not a candidate yet, but I am working on so like I'm working on the master's, which is in route for the PhD. So it's like I'll be a candidate pretty soon. What's your I'm sorry, I'm not trying to like butter you up or anything. I'm just curious. What's your what's what's your major? Industrial organizational psychology. So basically like work psychology. So like what types of selection tests do we use? So like, for example, like if employers like Amazon or other usually bigger companies will use selection tests, so they might kind of screen out applicants looking for people who are high in conscientiousness or intelligence tests, if it's like knowledge work, so that actually sounds pretty rad. Best of luck. I don't think I could do a master's. I'm so bad at school. That's nice of you. It's hard to believe you're you're a thinker. So I think you'd probably I think the trick is enjoying what you do and I definitely enjoy it, even though it's you know, like sometimes it's grueling, but it's it's fun. And yeah, it's kind of like when you enjoy ideas. But yeah, I know that you had gotten a I think I remember you had mentioned that you had gotten a bachelor's and I'm trying to remember was it in sociology? Nailed it. Yeah, with a minor in communications. Awesome. Excellent. That's really cool. Was it I can't do I can't do homework for the life of me. I can't do I it's all test grades. I am I am horrible at school. You know, I don't blame you. It is there are like certain things that are some people enjoy them more than others and I don't blame them like. It's it's not like a one size fits all. And actually, I guess it's just like a lot of things outside of school, too. So yeah, definitely. I guess and one of the things I think that makes school maybe a little bit harder to get invested in these days is sometimes it feels like there's such a disconnect between what you learn and its applicability. And it feels like it's its own little bubble where you just get like the paper at the end and then and then you're out of there and you're into an entire new completely disconnected, you know, series of incident states. Oh, yeah, that's so true. I would encourage people to I think sometimes I hear like anti college views, which I'm kind of like, wait, hold on, like there are probably some majors that I'm not sure if I would ever do, but that's also maybe part of my bias. But there are some at the same time. It's like sometimes I hear people say they're like, well, I'm not going to go to college. It's just too much debt. And it's like, well, but if you became an MD, like you'll pay it off really quick, like plenty of money. But it's just that it's true that there are a lot of majors where it's like it could be quite long before you pay off that debt. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Not just underwater basket weaving, too. There's just like because they would say, like, become a lawyer, you know, lawyers pay well, become an engineer, engineers pay well, become a coder, coders pay well. But every time that happens, that industry gets flooded with new people and the average wage, like plummets, at least from the ground floor, you know, so they have to keep finding the new, like, guaranteed work after college profession. Oh, yeah. That's true. It'll fluctuate. So it's it's not an easy it's not an easy game if you if you want to play it. But it's the trick, as I suppose, whatever you do, enjoy it. And that's my hope. I don't know, like, who knows what will happen. My hope is I do love modern day debate so much. But, like, if it ever came to the place of being able to do it full time, I just enjoy it so much that I have to be honest, I would just wrap up the PhD and then go to YouTube, to be honest. But that's hey, that's the that's the guaranteed work these days. The YouTube gig, that's that's the good stuff. It's it's definitely is the channel. I really enjoy it. I was seeing a let's see, I was talking to a counselor and I said, he's like, oh, even in a like, it's like, I don't know, I like people who, you know, I like ideas and at that time it was like the start of modern day debate. So modern day debate has been a really fun idea community. It's like people who just love ideas. And so that's why it's kind of across the gambit like religion, politics, science and but it's so fun. It's a community that's just been really pleasant. Like it's their idea people, which is fun. It's fun to be around them. Sorry about that, Chaps. I do apologize. No, not at all. What are you saying? Sorry, we can I think we can take a step back, probably. If we were to what was the last thing you were in on? Oh, I just made my point about the transition away from monarchy, laws being passed for co-op ownership and how indentured, served, student child labor coercive. Yeah, I guess I'll I'll go because I responded to those. But I'll go over it again because obviously you were right. So essentially my issue with these comparisons are as such. For one, I strongly disagree with your assertion that revolutions have all been like a bloody waste of time. I as a yank, I think I'm I'm quite happy personally to be living away from the looming threat of of of monarchal domination. There are benefits sometimes to massive systemic changes. For example, the implementation of the Magna Carta, the the making of England into a parliamentary democracy was also a system which could have been challenged with the accusation. Don't you think it's immoral to take away people's private properties? At the end of the day, we're talking about the livelihood of millions of people in this country, hundreds of millions. The majority of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Some 40 percent of Americans cannot afford a four hundred dollar emergency. This is in the wealthiest country in the world. That's disgusting to me. Like that's that's repulsive. That's why it doesn't need to be that way. It's this isn't like some inevitable product of the economic, you know, the determinable condition. This is decisions that have been made by people in power. And we don't have any way to check that power, because right now all the power in this country is concentrated amongst the uber wealthy and the politicians and the two of them get along very, very, very well. The only way to meaningfully return this country to a direction of democracy and egalitarianism and representing the rights of the average person is taking that power away from them. And I would say to anyone who believes that immoral, the same thing I would say to anyone who believes the days of slave owners were immoral or the taking away the rights of the monarchs or before them, the emperors and kings that, you know, rule the ancient realms of the world. And I would say this sometimes it is actually quite moral to take power and property away from people who are using that power and property to oppress, marginalize and reduce the vast majority of the population. I stand by that very firmly. Thanks so much. Right. The problem that you have with this, these comparisons, in my opinion, is that in the comparison that you're making, all of the people who acquired the property privilege and wealth they have acquired it through illegitimate means. The problem that you have in America and with billionaires is that you I honestly can't point to a billionaire who got their money through illegitimate means. I don't know. I mean, like who did Mark Zuckerberg oppress not to become a billionaire? You know, the by the means, if the means to gain the thing were fair and voluntary, which they appear to have been in most parts, then arbitrarily taking them away because you don't like the outcome, that's just going to be. There's no way to perceive it that's not that's unfair. So I don't know what to say about that, really. It's just I don't think people are going to agree to I don't agree to it. The the hang on, I'm not finished. The revolutions in Europe were a bloody waste of time, and they were unbelievably bad. You can you can crow about the American Revolution, but that's because it was an English Revolution. It was essentially an English Civil War. So I'm not surprised that bloody, to be honest. If you look at the original English Civil War, that wasn't very bloody either. All things considered, it doesn't discount the fact that all of the other revolutions have been terrible failures. It just it just shows the uniqueness of the English perspective, the individualist perspective. But part of the individualist perspective is in fact, the whole thing is built on property rights. And if you if you take them away, if you if you ignore them, then they then you lose the structure and stability of that system. And you end up becoming like the continental that you are. You think like a German and you want an American and English outcome. You aren't going to get it. Thanks so much, Carl. OK, so I'm going to be perfectly honest. I have no idea what you were talking about. For a second, I was worried that I had like skipped a beat. I'm going to assume that was deliberately incoherent in an attempt to sort of jump me. Why don't you just ask me what I meant? Preciant points. You can clarify if you'd like when you have your time. The more prescient points you made, I don't know why we're getting on revolutions here, because I'm talking about very legal lawmaking. So I don't know how we sort of jumped to that point. I don't know how the American Revolution could be fairly criticized as an English civil again, but with all of that aside, your central criticism here is completely bunk. You say that the power achieved by those in power today was achieved through legitimate means. That's the exact same thing feudal lords would have said. The exact same thing by their standards. The power they had achieved was legitimate. Do you think that people went around for a thousand years claiming your local law like their powers illegitimate course not and they could have said the same thing to participate in the bounty of this monarchy and then to complain about it just because you don't like that you're a serf and others are lords is it's myopic, you know, it's selfish. It's an unsensical argument, Carl, and you have to know that. I'm talking about making the world a better place. The property rights of the lords were violated pretty substantially, mind you, in many European countries when we transitioned towards a democratic society, you know, when we had the the vast swaths of land they controlled being broken up and made municipal properties that were then zoned off into commercial areas, that was their property being seized. And it made the world a much, much better place and had nothing to do, by the way, with the serfs being mad at how things turned out and had to do with the fact that the system was fundamentally unfair, as then a very small number of people controlled all the political power and economic power in the country. We have today a system where a very small number of people control the economic and political power. And it's interesting to me that in this discussion, which is ostensibly supposed to be about the benefits of worker co-ops or capitals or whatever, you seem encamped with the very idea of fundamentally changing society, which is the most banal, boring and spineless approach imaginable to discussing political theory. Go ahead. Thanks, Vash. Yeah, OK. It's pretty bold of you, to be honest, to admit that you don't understand what I've just said and then claim that my argument is incoherent or nonsense when you've just admitted fault. The difference is English liberalism is individualistic and German socialism is collectivist. This means that in English individualism, the individual is his own property and his property rights matter. You are a German collectivist, so the individual is not their property. They are actually property of the group. Their property rights don't matter. If you can find a philosophical rationale to allow you to target a portion of the population to persecute them, which I would say I would say violating people's right to property is a form of persecution. Then you are, in fact, no different to the tyrants of the 20th century. The only difference between you and them is scale. The idea you can't compare feudal lords to Mark Zuckerberg. Like Zuckerberg achieved his prosperity through consent. They achieved theirs through violence. We do not consider violence a legitimating factor, but we do consider consent a legitimating factor. If we don't agree on that, then that's fine, but I think you're wrong. And many of life was much more complicated than served versus lords. I don't even want to start going down that rabbit hole. It'll be a massive distraction, but you just you do not know enough about feudal Europe, basically. That's a very compelling counter-argument, Carl. I don't want to get into it, but you're wrong, Will. So I don't know this is I've seen you try to do this before. You believe you believe that sort of nations have a character and you try to fit people into those blocks. I don't know what you mean by German collectivism. I'm advocating for property rights. In fact, I'm advocating for the expansion of property rights. I don't know if you're actually engaging with any of the arguments that I'm making here, because it seems like every time I respond to a series of points you make, you back up another level and make a different series of points. But that's OK. If you want to concede sort of the idea that market socialism would improve society and your only contention is that passing laws to make private firms collectively owned by their workers seeds too close to some esoteric idea of German collectivism for your tastes, that's totally OK. What I care about is making society better. I advocate for the expansion of property rights so they apply to everyone who works at a given place. I don't like the fact that our society is controlled by a very small number of people and I don't like people who justify the fact that society is controlled by a very small number of people by calling those who have lost in this game sore losers. I like democracy. I don't know how you feel about democracy. I like the idea that people should be able to advocate for their own rights. I consider these to be very fundamental principles of liberalism as well. It is often said that socialism is a promise to fulfill the enlightenment whereas fascism is a rejection of enlightenment principles, which is why socialists are themselves very concerned with fraternity, equality, you know, brotherhood, liberty and fascists are of course not. They don't like those things very much. I carry very much about the principles of the enlightenment. It's why I advocate for everything that I do because I do want a democratic society that is fair, that gives everyone a voice both in their government and in the place that they work. And if you have no empirical arguments against the validity of that form of organization and would instead rather back up to some suggestion that I'm violating the English principle of the organization and that actually this type of oligarchy is much better than the old type of oligarchy, then feel free to, that's your right. You'll never encounter a civilization that doesn't have some kind of oligarchy. It's wishful thinking and it's worse, in my opinion. The idea an expansion of property rights by violating other people's property rights. I you could you could quite easily term theft that there's no reason why that couldn't be applied to theft because that's precisely what you're doing. And the reason that you're doing is because of my feels. I don't like that. I don't like that. Well, OK, that's fine. You don't have to like it. It's OK if you don't understand the difference in individualism and collectivism, even though I've just explained it. It's OK if you don't understand. It's OK if you're not engaging with it. But if that's all you're going to say, then I think we'll have to just agree to disagree and you can agree to be wrong. Sure. Yeah, I'm OK with being wrong in the eyes of somebody who believes advocating for liberty, democracy, fairness and equality is feels over reels. You haven't really mounted any substantive counter argument, either to the efficaciousness of a worker co-ops led society, nor mind you to the fundamental differences between the legitimacy of this oligarchy and the last. And I don't know why you've accused me of not understanding collectivism as a concept when I've explained to you that collectivism isn't even relevant to the property rights discussion that you incanced, I guess, ignorant of the fact that I'm advocating for its expansion. But that's all right. I know that you're somewhat averse to reading. This is something you would have to educate yourself on a little bit more before continuing the discussion. Would you like to talk about immigration? I had a lot of fun researching the subject since our last discussion. And I was no, I'd like to respond to what you've said there because you don't. Oh, feel free. Then we can talk about you're not right on anything. I'm trying to remember, I think it was Vosh who maybe got the ball rolling. So what we could do is give Sargon a chance to respond. Hang on, hang on. I'd like to I'd like to respond to that. That's what I'm saying. This is ridiculous. I was going to say if it was if it's OK with you guys, I want to give you a chance to respond to Sargon right now. And then if after that, if you guys are OK with immigration, I think it's a great segue. Thanks so much. Right. So Vosh, you literally kept saying the reason that you want what you want is because you'd like to see X, you'd like to see Y. And you believe that this is a way to see X and Y. That's what that was your rationale. You can go back and watch the video and listen to yourself saying, I'd like this, I'd like that. The idea that you think collectivism and individualism is not a relevant distinction here is ridiculous. The there is no such thing as expanding property rights. You can't do it. It's universal. It's inherent in a person by the labor that they spend to pick up like an acorn off the floor. That acorn is now my property because of the labor I expended to pick it up. Every person is imbued with property rights because of their ability to create property through their labor. You can't expand property rights. They are universal. This is what I mean when I say you're a collectivist, because that what I've said there is an individualist perspective. Each individual has these rights. You don't agree with that. You think that they can expand and contract based on the state, which is what makes you a collectivist. This this is why all I can say is we'll have to go on to the next topic because there's there's no concord here. No, I'm fine with that. We can move on. I'm glad you agree that people are entitled to the fruits of their labor, Carl. But you don't. OK, so this is a you're literally arguing to take away the fruits of labor. I think that I know that forgive me, Vosh. I know you've got another round in the chain. No, no, it's OK. It's OK. He counter argued himself. I don't need to finish. We can move to immigration. OK, if you guys are ready for integration, excellent. Thanks so much, guys. It's been a pleasure so far, so excited to talk about immigration. Yeah, OK, Sargon, would you like to take sort of the first kick here because I was the one who who got the ball rolling with socialism? Sure, I mean, immigration has many different layers as to why it's something that should be done with great care and sensitivity. And the left has not done immigration with either. But I don't want to just place the blame on the left for the failings of our immigration policies. The right is just as bad. I completely agree with Bernie Sanders when he had a when he said it before he cucked that immigration is a Koch brothers idea. Open borders are a Koch brothers idea because mass immigration is class warfare. Good. Oh, is that so much? OK, that's the. Oh, OK, sure. Yeah, so immigration is a tricky topic. I don't advocate for immediate open borders. That obviously rather silly if we just like drop them all down. Of course, our system as it exists today could not handle just infinite number of people coming in. That's ridiculous. What I do advocate for, however, is the sensible and I'll term sensible moment immigration where people can come into the country, regardless of their race, ethnicity, culture, whatever, and they contribute meaningfully to our economy. They diversify our culture, something that I personally value as an American. Right now, in my opinion, in America, we have a really, really good rate of immigration. Our immigration system is horrible. The actual like bureaucracy behind it is terrible. But the actual rate of immigrants coming in seems quite well. And one thing that bothers me is when right-leaning people, this tends to be more of a right-leaning thing, scaremonger and say that immigration is a well to put, as you said, class warfare, that there is some sort of broader pawn in like destroying the livability of the lower class to benefit the elite. And while in some respects, the wealthy do benefit tremendously from immigration. And in some respects, the poorest echelons of our society are hurt by immigration. The reality is far more complicated. And some people at some people, maybe even among us, advocates for some very silly responses to the proposed downsides of immigration. And that's what I'm mostly interested in tackling. Right now, I think immigration to America, possibly even the UK, is at a fairly decent clip. I'm obviously more familiar with the American statistics of the UK ones, but that's my position. Thanks so much. Right. I don't care that they contribute to our economy or diversify our neighborhoods or whatever. I don't care about those things. I find it interesting to say it's a really good rate in the U.S. because I think it's the immigration rate is one of the reasons you got Donald Trump. So get your MAGA cap. Would you like to clarify that? Yeah, I think Donald Trump is a response to mass immigration. Why? Because people don't like feeling that they are kind of losing their culture in their country. OK, so that's a feels argument. Can you empirically demonstrate the immigration cost? Listen to what I said, what did I say? Repeat it to yourself. Are you going to respond? Repeat what I said, you misinterpreted it. People don't like feeling that they are losing their country. That's an empirical observation. That's not how I feel about it. That's what they seem to say. Well, yeah, that seems to so I think so can you clarify? Do you mean like they don't like non-white people being there? Or they don't they don't they don't like non-Americans. It's not they don't that's an unfair way of putting it. It's not they don't like non-Americans. But what it is is there's been a sustained campaign of mass immigration in most Western countries for about the last 20 or 30 years. And that's starting to have its toll. The social fabric is being eroded. Can you clarify? Well, what didn't you understand? Well, this is exactly what I mean by the far right pedagogry, where you sort of obfuscate the facts of immigration by alluding to a vague silent majority that is absolutely disgusted by immigration. I want to talk about facts. I'm not interested in this. Hang on, let's talk about let's talk about facts. Let's talk about the Tory majority based on breakfast. No, no, no, I would like to talk about the impact of immigration on the country. Once we can just start, we can just poll people. Seventy percent of British public say they don't want immigration. That's not an argument. What for ending immigration? So that's literally an argument argument and, you know, popular, that's a fallacy. Do you think that an argument is correct? I'm giving an ad popular. So you should never advocate for it. Wait, you should never advocate for it. Gentlemen, I'll give you one second. I just I want to defer to Carl because we were doing kind of that like one to two minute back and forth and totally fair to ask your question, Vosh. And and I but I'm just a little bit nervous that if we that I think it was going so well with that one to two minutes, we were doing so well. Yeah, go for it. If we give maybe so you bet go for a maybe a minute or two. Thanks so much. Sure. But the so the the objection is the objection to private property rights is that you want everyone to have a voice in society and you think that violating these will do that. But when they do and when we can just ask them and they say, yes, 70 percent say we don't want mass immigration. Then that's argument ad popular and they're wrong, right? Even though it's meant to be about giving them a voice. Because I mean, I think people forget that politics is not based on fact. It actually is based on feelings. And we saw this starkly with the failure of Jeremy Corbyn. You can't you know, no one knows the future. So we can't say, oh, guaranteed this will happen, guaranteed that will happen. And if there's one thing we've seen, all of the economic predictions surrounding major events in the past five years have been wrong. They've just not been correct. And so that's not what people are working on, because they know that this is a representative. This is not someone who they can directly, you know, every individual action they they take, they can hold accountable. But they want to know the direction in which they're going to go in. And so they they vote based on whether they feel that the person understands their problems and is in some way like them. And so the most common thing you heard on the doorstep, according to the Labour MPs or ex MPs now who lost their seats, they would just hit over and over. I just don't like Jeremy Corbyn. I just don't like Jeremy Corbyn. I don't trust him. And it's like, OK, well, then why should why should that not be considered to be a valid proposition for an election? It's like, we're not it's not a test. It's about the direction that would make people feel comfortable in which their country is going. It's not, you know, a country isn't an economic project. So saying, oh, this is going to increase the economy. Well, who cares? Especially if it's going to hurt you to say the amount of money you have in your pocket, which, man, the idea of a communist or a socialist or whatever you call yourself, arguing against against closing borders. When you admit that the wealthy do benefit and the poorest are hurt, is pretty mind blowing. I've got to say, yeah. So there were a lot of points there. Most of them were irrelevant. I'm aware that people vote for who they think is right. So again, an argument ad that popular is the argument that something is correct just because people believe it. Yes, I support a democracy where people should be able to express their rights. That doesn't mean just because something is popular. You get to default to their opinion in lieu of actually making an argument. Can help you out with that one. The reason why you're defaulting to the general consensus of what you say, seventy something percent oppose immigration is because you don't actually have the arguments. That's not an argument. That's an argument maybe for passing laws to reduce immigration, but not for whether or not it is right to pass those laws. Incidentally, you were lying to me. Forty four percent of people in the United Kingdom want to reduce immigration. According to this poll, migration observatory.ox.ac.uk. I can post it in the Zoom link if you would like. I don't know where you got your statistic from, but the vast majority of UK residents want to either keep immigration the same as it is or allow more of it. So if we were to speak of democratic majority, Carl, I would be a little more careful with your sources. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on. It's OK. Yeah, we'll get you soon. So with that being said, you made some dig at the end about a communist supporting policy that hurt people. There are two points that I'd like to make to that. The first being, as I said earlier, immigration is a very complicated economic problem. And I would argue that immigration actually benefits poor people as though disproportionately less than it does the rest of the population. And when I say I would argue, what I actually mean is I have a source list of documents to annihilate any counter argument you have on that respect. We can go down if you would like. But the consensus is that immigration boosts the economy in general, which means a higher minimum wage, which offsets the reduction of wages that are experienced in lower lower income segments of the economy, which means that the price of commodities is reduced, which means that an increased GDP and increased federal revenue means there's more money to go to social programs. It's a lot of stuff. It's very complicated piece by and as a communist, I want people to be better off, which is why I advocate for immigration, something which empirically leaves people better off. Funnily enough, the people who are hurt most by immigration are actually former immigrants because they have the lowest the highest level of interchangeability between their respective labor. So actually, the people who are hurting the most when a fresh Pakistani immigrant comes to the United Kingdom are the previous wave of fresh Pakistani immigrants. So if you delight at all in their suffering, then that maybe can be some sort of silver lining to you. Go ahead. Thanks so much. Yeah, I don't agree with your data at all. I'm just putting a couple of things in the chat. Do you want to just pull them up for me? There's one from Migration Watch and one from YouGov. The YouGov one is people who believe immigration is much too high or a little too high are 63 percent. People who say it's about right are 22 percent. Three percent say it's too low and I guess one percent say much too low with 11 percent saying don't know. And then there's a Migration Watch link here that 76 percent immigration reduced, four percent one increased. So can you send me through your source? Yeah, I can. Here you go. UK public opinion. This is from 2020. This is the most recent source, more recent than the two of you. That's from a, yeah, there you go. So still most people want immigration reduced? No. 39 out of the those who have an opinion on it, 39 percent thought it should stay the same or 44 they would like it reduced. No, that's the first point. That's 39 percent when it remained the same. Yes, if you count having an opinion on it as only those who want to change it, the majority of people want to keep it as it is. 39 percent for people advocating for that. If you scroll down in the link that I have provided you, you'll see that the bar next to remain the same as it is, is longer than the bars that don't say that. And that is how I can tell. Also, if you scroll your mouse over it, the percentage, yeah, that's one way of that's one poll and one way of interpreting what you've said, but there are other ways it depends on how you frame the question. But generally, it seems that people overall want to reduce. No, it doesn't, actually. My poll is the most recent. And in addition, your poll was asking whether or not people felt the levels were a little bit too high. That's not the same as asking whether they would want it changed. This is directly asking the point that you were interested in and that affirms my position. And I'd like to remind, by the way, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. I'll stop for you. I'm not going to let you scurry on. No, the polls do not show that, right? Forty four percent said they would like immigration to be reduced. That's the first point on that. Yes, forty four percent would like it reduced either a little or a lot. Yes. Then you have this second one where it's how much would remain remain the same. If I'm sorry, wait, Carl, I'm not trying to can't just appeal to that. OK. Especially in the light of, wait, you cut out your voice. You cut out. Can you repeat that? It was a little cut. Sorry. Yeah. No, no, no, you you can't just appeal to people going for the status quo because they don't know better, especially in the light of other polls that suggest overwhelmingly that people want to reduce. Wait, you don't want to wait, we just arbitrarily don't count the opinions of people who are fined of the system as it exists. No, because I'm saying we can't take an endorsement of the status quo as for more or less, can we? No, we take it for keeping it the same as it is, which is what I said, that the majority either wants to keep it the same as it is or have it improved. Or we can say the majority wants to keep it the same as it is or reduce it. And more people want to reduce it or keep it the same as it is. Yet you are the one who came in with a positive claim that the majority wanted to reduce immigration. So I was countering your point. Let's let's with that. Let's go back to like a two minute response. There is the migration watch. There is the there is the migration watch then I believe to you that says that 70% want to reduce. And then there's the other one that says that 63% think it's too high. OK. So I don't think that's an unfair characterization at all. So the idea that you can claim like a category victory here is laughable. One second. I want to give you a box. I'm going to give you a chance to respond. But just because Stephen had he said he just wants to be sure that he gets kind of the broad outline, Carl, of your position on immigration. If you'd be willing to give just a quick outline of it. And then I promise Bosh will come back to you to give you a chance to respond. Go for it. Well, I'll specifically speak in Britain. But basically, I think immigration is a form of class warfare. I think there's a reason that the international socialists and the international bankers and business types that the party of Davos, as Bannon would call it, they've all aligned on this because they all see some kind of benefit. The international socialists seem to think that they can use immigration, save the world and the international business types think that they can use open borders to kill everyone's wages and get really, really rich in the process. That's why I think it's a form of class warfare. You got it. Thanks so much. Yeah, I don't know why Carl saw fit to assign my position to me. I like immigration because I think people should have the right to travel freely across borders. You get one life. I think you should be able to move to wherever you want. Enjoy your life. I'm very much for individual rights. You know, I'm very liberal in that respect, classically, one might say. I don't know what this appealed to the interests of the of the business class are. I don't know. If you think the business class would be in favor of me advocating for the for the seizure of private firms and making them public, the idea that we're like the stooges of the Koch brothers and what have you is fairly ridiculous, but I hear it a lot from nozzles. So it's it's a pretty common talking point in reality, immigration. And again, this is empirical. And I noticed that Carl was very eager to avoid the empirical argument here. He's very keen on argument. Populom. The empirical fact of the matter is that countries benefit from immigration. There is a very small reduction in the average wage of the lowest echelons of the workers in that country, you know, very low level service workers or agricultural workers and what have you, that absolutely is the case. However, it brings many other benefits, which I've described prior in this discussion and with even the slightest uptick in welfare spending or increase in the minimum wage or any of the other myriad programs that we can use to improve the lives of the poor, we compensate for the loss in wages. We more than compensate. We actually improve past that point and we have made the entire country wealthier, happier, more productive for literally no cost, certainly not for crime rates, at least here in America. Immigrants commit less crime than the native population does. Again, I speak mostly from my familiarity with American statistics, but this this is just this is just unambiguously the case. Bernie Sanders protectionist policies are one of the things I disagree with him most on. I just I don't think the the statistics back it and I don't think we should mindlessly oppose immigration just because some fat cats also wanted. We can deal with them in other ways. Redistributive policies, ways that make the country better, not ways that make it weaker. Thanks so much. I want to give Carl plenty of time to respond. So a lot of ideas there. Yeah, that was amazing. Thank you. All right. So you are right. Studies show that it depresses wages, which is why Bernie Sanders used to be against it, because he used to care about the poor people in society. I find it very interesting how former migrants are most hurt. That I would have thought on it on the face of it, that was enough for us to end mass immigration. But the business class absolutely do mass immigration as a form of class warfare. They see it as increasing profits at the expense of the poor immigrant workers and native let's, you know, I don't say white working class. It's not just the native white working class, especially in America. There are other native groups as native as we can call an American who are who are not white, who will still be hurt by this. The idea, I love this, the country's benefits as the lowest wages go down. So you're exploiting the lowest paid and most vulnerable in society at the many other benefits of mass immigration. I consider this to be deeply immoral. And I think that if you were face to face with the suffering that you're causing, then you perhaps would think that maybe we shouldn't exploit the work, the lowest paid in society so we get so so the not the lowest paid can enjoy the fruits of that exploitation. The country is happier and wealthier, but everyone at the bottom is being exploited by billionaires. I would have thought that was a problem to try to fix, considering you're a communist, I can't believe you'd actually advocate for the reduction in wages for the poor people in society. But the fact cats are not the only problems. The fact, you know, I don't really care about the financial argument, but it is a true argument. I'm more concerned with the fact that we are we are cultures with traditions and histories and heritage. And there are definitely places that you can see that immigration has changed and it really eroded that. And so you can't reasonably say that, you know, Birmingham or London are English cities, these are not cities that tend to follow the English traditions. And that's concerning, considering that's the two largest cities in England. So I think that people have I think that's a valid concern that people have. Thanks so much. OK, so in the future, Carl, I would appreciate it if you made arguments I hadn't already responded to because your spiel on fat cats and hurting the poor was something I deliberately addressed in my last segment. I notice you have no counter arguments. Did you think the audience would notice? OK, OK, hold on. You had your moment. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. We could go through minutes of rhetoric each, right? But there's obviously something here about what James I understand. He's upset, but I was my second. If it's if it's OK, Carl, if we if I promise we'll come right back to you to address it. OK, OK, it's fine. But right. So again, in the future, just pretend that I'm responding to your argument. Imagine that you have to move the conversation beyond where you already are. Just imagine in your head so you don't keep making the same arguments. I have to. But anyway. So I've already addressed about half of your first segment, which was where you pretended that I hadn't talked about other forms of redistributive policies or how the entire country benefits or how immigration leads to an increase in the minimum wage in federal budget, which goes towards welfare programs and all the many, many ways in which it benefits everyone and only harms poor people in an incredibly shallow way that gets compensated for by other economic factors. I know that's all very complicated. The two points you actually did dane to make were a that it is deeply immoral not to care about the poor. I do care about the poor, so this doesn't apply to me. But I do find it funny that you were very keen to dismiss the needs of the poor again, like 80 percent of the country lives paycheck to paycheck and you were the one arguing that any change to the status quo, which is attempting to fix that, is a violation of property rights. So you seem very keen in the poor when it comes to a 2 percent decrease in wages following the immigration of millions of people. But when it comes to 80 percent of the country living paycheck to paycheck, not being able to save up money for the retirement, not being able to afford a four hundred dollar emergency, you just seem very keen on ignoring that almost makes it seem like your issue with immigration has nothing to do with the economy and you're just latching on to that incredibly weak argument when every economist agrees immigration is a slam dunk economic benefit, but that's OK. I wouldn't be honest with my intentions either in your position because your last argument is your real argument and I'm glad you saved it for last this culture changing thing. I don't know by what metric London isn't an English city. The majority of its residents were born in England, which I mean, even if that wasn't the case, it is within England. It is an English city in every legal sense. I don't know what you mean by not an English city. What is an American city is is is is Pensacola, Florida, an American city because its culture is very different to Seattle or New York or Los Angeles, which are other American cities. I don't think you can determine actually what type of nation a city belongs to by the culture of its inhabitants. London is a very impressive city in many ways. It has other problems undoubtedly that should be addressed to call it not English, I think, is, I don't know, a little stupid. Well, let's give Carl plenty of time to respond, of course. OK, I think that's absolutely hilarious. I think you haven't done much traveling if you think you can't determine the country a city is in by the culture of the inhabitants. That's absurd. It's about just identifying as English. They don't identify as English. They don't consider themselves to be English. They don't follow English traditions. They don't really care about the history of the country and they don't care about the sort of culture of it. And I think those are things worth caring about. But more importantly, I'm not going to just let you walk away from the fact that you are a communist who is arguing for the increase in billionaire wealth at the expense of the poorest people in society. It's not that it's not even immoral not to care about the poor. That's not immoral to not care about something. It's immoral to exploit them to improve the size of billionaire checks. What? And then the thing is from this, it drives you to necessarily have to violate people's rights, in this case, property rights, whereas we could just avoid violating property rights by simply not allowing mass immigration, because this is, as you admit, driving people's wages down. And I'm sure that contributes to them living paycheck to paycheck. If there was a buyer's market for if there was a seller's market labor, not a buyer's market for labor, then these people would need minimum wages. But the problem is it's a seller's market. It's a buyer's market for labor. The corporations have all the cards because they are never a shortage for workers because of mass immigration. It's just harmful to these people. You're putting them in a position they can't really escape from. And what you're saying is right now, we're going to have to use excessive state power and revolution. I think that this is just the wrong way to go. Thanks so much. Yeah, so I can't remove earwax. I don't know if you haven't heard me explain the myriad ways in which immigration benefits the economy in such a way as to compensate for the incredibly minor. And all the economists who have written on this, by the way, they're very clear to say this is an incredibly minor decrease in the average wages of the lower echelon of our economic hierarchy. I think it's funny, by the way, that you say that immigration is part of the reason why so many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck when every single economic source I looked over indicated that the percentage of people in America who are affected by immigration and had their wages lowered or high school dropouts, which constitute a fairly small percentage of this country. I think it was around 12 to 13 percent. 80 percent of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. That's not immigration, my friend. That's capitalism because the majority of Americans benefit in terms of wage growth from the existence of immigration. So nice trying to skip on by that one. I don't know what your point was with Londoners don't identify as English. If you could provide me a source or like a polling data where Londoners were asked if they thought they were English or something. Maybe a lot of them said no, because they were immigrants. I don't know what that means for the city. It seems like an incredibly weird point to make. I don't know. Londoners don't identify. I don't even have a counter argument for that one. If you have data, I would be very interested in seeing it. I think London is a city and it's in England and most of its inhabitants are English citizens, so it seems like by any metric the city is English. The reason why I say you can't really make a like sort of a cross comparison between the culture of a city and the country. And it's in is because I live in America. I live in America. We have an incredible range of cultures here in this country, many of which, and this isn't just an immigration thing, many of which have been in this country for a very long time from Appalachia to the West, to the East Coast, to the South, to the Northeast. We have a huge range of countries in this split. Sorry, sorry, cultures in this country. And I don't know which one of them is American. It seems like there isn't really an American culture. There's no single one. There are just cities and people and we all live in a border and we try our best to make our way, you know, making our way downtown, walking fast and London, I imagine it's the same way. I have not been to England. I imagine that if I traveled its breath, I would find that there are different cultures and different cities, not just from London to the rest of England, but from the North to the South, from the East to the West, from larger cities to smaller cities. And I would come to the conclusion, as I have here in America, that trying to make some ubiquitous determination as to a nation's default culture and whether or not a city is part of that country because it has that culture. It's nonsense. It's pseudo, it's pseudo sociology. You can't falsify any of it. It's just feelings. And I don't like feelings. I like facts and very fact oriented here on my channel. Thanks so much. Yes, I'm just finishing my notes. So I like your your understanding of and your your view of people as part of groups is laughable. I mean, you can like, for example, in the the the data, can you show me some data? Yeah, it's called the census force. It's called the census. I have it up in front of me. Yeah. And in 2011, which is the last one, and this is quite some time ago after much mass immigration, only 45% of the city identifies white British. Are you do you believe makes the point, doesn't it can be British? Bush, I don't care what you think is racist. I don't care, Bush. But what I'm saying is that most people do you think non white people can be British once most people for Bush in the United Kingdom do not identify as British in London, sorry, not the UK, not identify as British. Therefore, your opinion on my opinion on who is and is not British is not relevant because we're just asking people how they identify. They don't think they are. And so that's the end of that conversation. Based on what? Nationality or ethnicity? Bush, based on their own self-identification. And that's in any nationality or Bush, Bush, why can't you just answer my turn? Bush, it's my turn to talk, isn't it? So based on self-identification and honestly, I don't understand how you don't understand that you keep saying that you are you and you know you are targeting the poorest in society and you are justifying targeting them for exploitation by saying it's only a minor decrease and everyone else benefits. Why should the poorest in city carry that burden? I think that richer people should go without in order to not exploit the poorest in society. And I thought I was the catalyst. So you've admitted already that immigrants, immigration hurts prior immigrants and the law study that you have no leg to stand on here. Go. Right. OK. So I've addressed the latter point like six times now. Yeah. So you're advocating for Carl. It's OK. You'll get a chance again. What you're advocating for is an ethno state. And I can prove that I have the data right here. We can actually look at it on my stream. So the number of Londoners as of the 2011 census showed that 63.3 percent of London's population was born in England. There are English citizens. So the majority of people in England are English. You said a minority as in less than 50 percent are white British, which suggests that you aren't counting non-white English people as part of what constitutes an English identity in the country. And this is a problem we ran into the last time we talked. You're advocating for an ethno state. There's no ifs ands or buts about it. You're using people's ethnic identity as a descriptive to determine whether or not they are legitimately English. Now, nationality, I get, you know, if you weren't born in England, that's totally fine to say that person is not English. I think that's valid. Maybe they live there like 60 years or something, but that's getting in the weeds. You're using ethnicity. And I'm going to be honest, as a liberal, as someone who believes in the principles of liberalism, you know, I'm very, I'm very much big on that classical liberalism. I'm not a big fan of ethno states, Carl. And it's a little weird to me that you would deliberately sidestep clarifying whether you mean ethnicity or nationality because you're too cowardly to acknowledge the fact that it is, in fact, ethnicity that you are using is the determining factor in whether or not you consider a person English. You'll note, if you want to go over the census, which I have in front of me, I can show it to my stream too. Many people in the census who recorded their ethnic identities fit into a category of either Asian or Asian British, Asian or Asian British, black or black British, the ethnicity section doesn't distinguish between national identity because that's not what it's trying to do. It's their ethnicity. And I would say, by the way, I'm what's my ethnicity? I am Irish and Polish for the most part. And if you ask me what I am, I would say I am an American because even though my ethnic identity does not come from America, my personal identity, my nationality is American, as are many of the English people you are saying are not legitimately a part of England or not part of the English identity. I don't really have any. I mean, if you want to argue in favor of an ethno state, you're fine. I have sources on those too. But is that really an argument you want to be on the table making? Thanks so much. Vorsch, these people don't identify as English. Ethnically. Ethnically, they don't identify as English. I don't identify as American ethnically, but I am still American. Whether you identify it or not, you clearly know what an ethnicity is. This is an ethno state. You're saying a national identity is determined by ethnicity. Just because I just want to be sure that Carl gets that roughly two minutes or so. And I'm interested. I'd like to go back and forth. What do you think ethnicity is defined as, Vorsch? Ethnicity, an ethnicity, not one's ethnic identity is defined by I'm sorry. What's an ethnic group? An ethnic group are people to adhere to an ethnicity. An ethnicity is determined by a people with a collective culture, nationality, language, heritage. There are a lot of things that could determine one's ethnicity. Yeah, but that's not race, is it? No, I'm not talking about race. I'm talking about ethnicity. I never said. Neither am I. These people who are in London, the the majority of people in London view themselves as being an ethnicity that does not originate in the British House. Yes. And you are making ethnicity the determining characteristic as to whether or not they are English. No, they don't call themselves English. Yes, I'm making that. No, I'm saying they ethnically do not identify as English. If they ethnically identify as English, I wouldn't care where they came from. If they if they came like this is literally what my grandfather did. He came over here to become English, but they have not come here to become English. I have a problem with that. Why don't you do know ethnicity doesn't mean the culture you subscribe to. Right here in America. So again, I mean, I don't know how it is the culture and the language and history, but it's not determinant. So you can come here to America. Of course, it can be. And there are and there are we who are American who are born in America. Karl, can you stop acting like a child for a moment and listen to the argument that you're going to attempt to review? If you come over here to America, you'll find that there are people who are very much American, who have been here for generations that are ethnicities all over the place. What's your ethnic identity? I'm Korean, I'm Indian, I'm Irish, I'm Russian. You get this all over the place. People don't really say American is an ethnicity because of the unique sociopolitical history of our country. But if you ask these people, nonetheless, if they're an American, they'll say yes. And culturally, these people are all the same. They don't if you're ethnically Korean because your great great grandmother came over here in 1914. That doesn't mean when you say you're ethnically Korean that you still subscribe to the cultural values of the Korean people. It doesn't it doesn't work that way. You are using ethnicity to determine whether or not a person is English as a culture or as an identity. We are speaking only of ethnicity. Yes, 100 percent. That's how it's determined. OK, then then you are by definition advocating for an ethno state. And what's unique is I think in this case, it's not because you're racist. It's because you're too stupid to know the definition of ethnicity. Let's go back. You think it means what culture are you a part of? And I don't know if I have the time and energy to explain to you. Literally, you read out the words. It can be course anything can. Can you find me sense of state on the identified culture of different ethnic groups, culture, not the ethnicity or the national identity. They identify as not being English. I'm not saying it's a racial identification for some of them. It might be racial, but that's not my criteria. It's for them. And you in America, like you say, it's a unique position you're in. That's why you have hyphenated Americans. They're not just Koreans. They're Korean Americans, Asian or Asian British, Asian or Asian African. It's here in the census. You have the same thing. Shut up. Let's give him so I could have my time to talk. Please. You have a particular unique circumstance in the United States. We didn't have that in Europe. That is not the same thing here. One second. So sorry, Carl. No, this is the connection. The connection was just fading for a little bit. So I'd say those last two sentences, Carl, if you could say those again. One more time, Carl. Sorry about that. Can we move on while I'm talking? OK, well, can you do your favor and give him a very calm chill out? Sorry. And the people who have come here simply do not identify as English. I don't want England's capital city to be a non English city. I don't want her second city to be a non English city. These are arguments from ethnicity that is correct. I'm not saying they can't become English. I'm not saying they shouldn't be encouraged to become English. They should be encouraged to become English, because like we said, this is not about race. This is about self identification, about belief, how you feel about yourself. And we are not there. There are lots of immigrants who come over with the intention of becoming a part of the historical continuum that is Britain or England or whatever, whatever way you want to describe it. But there are also lots of people here who have absolutely no intention. And I think that is unacceptable. I think that's a form of exploitation of a native population. I mean, at the end of the day, the English don't have anywhere else to go. But these people do if things all go wrong. So I think we do have to be cognizant of that. But finally, and this is the most important thing, you are not addressing, despite you trying to wave it away, the fact that you are a communist, arguing for the exploitation of the poor. Right. OK. So first of all, you're lying. American ethnicities are often hyphenated, African American or Korean American. We do do that and you'll find here, and I'm showing it on my stream, in the in the census for England. This is on London data, specifically, but this is the language that's used elsewhere, Asian or Asian British or for Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or British or black British, you know, mixed white and black Caribbean. The reason why they do this is because the people who wrote the census know that, A, ethnicities are not determinant of one culture. And B, because ethnicities can become mixed and disilluded and have more to do with one's identity. Sorry, you're going to have to you're going to have to repeat that from I hang on. I didn't I didn't hear you. Sorry, it went robotic on my end. It said from the 2011 census and then it went robot. That's OK. I'd love to make this point a second time. So with here, the 2011 census, we can see the reason why we use terms like Asian or Asian British being put in the same box or black and black British being put in the same box is because the people who took the census or who made the census wanted to make it perfectly clear. And they gave the option to those who wrote into the census that whether you identify as, say, for example, Pakistani ethnically or or British Pakistani, whether you intend on adhering to the culture of your home country or intend on integrating into the culture of England, those are grouped into the same category because ethnicity is not a determining factor in one's cultural identity, which is why there are Korean Americans here in America who just act like regular fucking Americans, except they, I don't know, they seem to be more fashionable in my personal experience. And there are Indian Americans who just act like Americans. And if you go over to England, and I will say this confidently, despite having never been to England, you will find there are plenty of people who over the past four generations have come from other countries and ascribed to other identities, ethnically, nonetheless, act British. And the reason for that and the reason I'm capable of recognizing that is because I don't believe in ethno states. What Carl just did, even though, again, he doesn't know what ethnicity means. That's fine. I guess I'm not sure I just find it for you. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. That's fine. What he's advocating for either through malice or ignorance is an ethno state. He even made the he even made the classic argument at the end there. English people have nowhere else to go, but they can come here. He made the Asia for Asian people, Africa for Black people, Western country for everyone. He made the classic white nationalist argument there. But again, I doubt he understands the nuances of the arguments he would have to make to win that. So I'm going to back off him on there. I don't believe in ethno states, Carl. I believe in liberalism. I believe that people should be able to live in the countries they want and that I don't think their ethnic identities going decades or even centuries back should determine whether or not you consider them legitimate legitimately English. I think that's, frankly, quite immoral. If that synches up the immigration thing, because I didn't hear. Hang on, hang on, hang on, don't pretend like I didn't finish. I'm just advocating for another point. You were about to change the subject. No, no, no, I'm I'm I'm putting forward the offer, Carl. So do you want to stick on this? Well, have you finished talking or not? Do you want to do you want to stick on this? Yes, I do want. Oh, OK, well, far be it for me to step as you finish talking, finished talking. Yeah, let me let me think of a closing argument here. Um, yeah, I think that. Well, well, well, well, Carl, if I remember right, I want to try to remember it was just if I remember it might have. It was at Vosh. I think you might have gotten the ball rolling on this topic. If I remember right. And what we could do is if you have any final last pithy points to add on to that Vosh, we can give you that chance and then otherwise we'll go over to Carl after that. And yeah, I think I want a last sentence or two. And then Carl can say whatever the hell he wants. And then we can move to another topic if you'd like. But yeah, final point again, I doesn't know what ethnicity means. That's fine. I'm not an ethno stator. And I think it's fitting then that Carl is so dishonest and disingenuous when he talks about the economic output or the consequences of immigration. It's not because he actually cares about the poor, his economic positions make that perfectly clear. It's because he's looking for a sort of back alley economic justification for marginalizing the people he sees as immigrants into his country. It's a very common tactic. People have been doing it for hundreds of years and people keep falling for it too. So I mean, Godspeed to him if it keeps working, right? And Carl, you can you can go for it. Are you prepared to be quiet now? I'll take your silence as a yes. I find that really funny. I defined ethnicity for you. I sent you the link on the thing to the ethnic, the definition of ethnic group that we commonly use with the express purpose of pointing out that this is not about race, because when you say the ethno staters, they are talking about race. You know, they are talking about race, they just use ethno state as a misnomer because ethnicity has been conflated for whatever reason with race. And in fact, it's not specifically about race at all. I will embrace the Dalai Lama's white nationalism, Europe for the Europeans, as he says, I do think that people are ethnic group. People are entitled to homelands. I actually do think that's a thing. I think that you couldn't really argue against it, because then you're arguing against literally every every independence movement from the British Empire. What is this, an Indian, an Indian ethnic state? What's wrong with the British being here? What's it? It's ridiculous. But mainly this isn't about my consideration. I like the way that Vosler was framing this. Again, to claim I'm using dishonest tactics is remarkable, because he's not. He's not accepting that he's the one who's advocating for persecuting and exploiting the poor and the immigrants in order to make everyone else's lives nicer. And then he's ignoring the fact that, again, it's what these people identify as. They do not consider themselves to be English. Now, I'm not saying there can't be any people who don't identify as English, but I think that when you get to the point where it's the majority of the people in the capital city who don't think of themselves as English, I think there are broader questions there that need to be asked than pretending offence, because that broader question is being asked. It doesn't matter whether you think it's good or bad. There are going to be people who have that conversation without you. So shutting it down is no good at all. And lying about being a liberal, considering you're openly a communist, is a bizarre tactic and just makes you look more dishonest. So I'm happy now to move on to the next category. You bet. And just to be fair, because I might be wrong about this. So forgive me if I accidentally said the wrong thing, Bosch. I thought that you started, but someone in the live chat said that it was the opposite, that you started the first topic and that Carl started this one. OK, so if you do want to if you want to do a pithy closing, I can give you that. Otherwise, if you want, we could go, we could either wrap it up, we could go to the next topic. Or if you said if you want to do a pithy response, you can. I can. I'll do a little pithy response here. We could do the next topic. I know Carl's positions on transgenderism are incoherent, though. So I imagine it would be a rather sort of like NPC kind of like pre-coded my position on transgender dialogue tree. Hold on. So yeah, to finish it, basically. Well, hang on, man. Well, I don't know, we can't calm down. Snowflake, the next topic. Sherry, I think we have to agree to some kind of understanding. Carl, Carl, my man Carl, it's going to be your turn soon. You'll get the conch, you'll get the speaking show. You don't know what I think on a subject and you're not even going to ask me. What I'd like to do is making these Catecharic declarations is really unproductive. I think you want to talk or you can always DM me. I have plenty of weekends off. Vosha, Vosha, if you're willing to, if you're willing to, if we just kind of keep the topics in like strict categories, you're willing to get a pithy response on immigration and then a pithy little response. So, yeah, to put it simply, what Carl advocated for, at least in the first section there was white nationalism. It's true he isn't speaking of race, he is speaking of ethnicity. That's why the term ethno-state is ethno-state and not race-state. Many people use ethno-state interchangeably with, say, for example, a white nationalist state, and he wasn't doing that. He's speaking specifically of Britain, but then he went ahead and say he agreed with this, the Dalai Lama's proposal of Europe for the Europeans and Africa for the Africans and what have you, which is essentially it's advocating for ethno-states. So he made that rather easy for me. And again, I don't know how many times I have to keep saying it. I love it when he gives me the chance to, because I'm right. So it makes me look really good. But immigration, even with the decrease to the average wage of low-paid workers, benefits low-paid workers. It also benefits the immigrants because the immigrants chose to came there, you chose to come there, usually from poor countries in search of job opportunities and economic opportunities that wouldn't have been available to them in their home countries. We benefit from that. Something like 50% of all patents filed over the past, I think it was in 2017. I would need to recheck that statistic. We're done by immigrants. That's an incredible statistic. There's a lot of innovation going on there. Everyone benefits. But if you want to keep white people in England and non-white people out, then yeah, it'd be anti-immigration too. Thank you very much. And now let's see, I'm trying to think of who to start with, because I know Karl wants to clarify something with regard to the transition. By the way, I want to mention folks with regard to transgenderism, if you are trans, you are more than welcome here, whether you be gay, straight, transgender, no matter who you are, Democrat, Republican, everybody, we want you to feel welcome no matter where you are. So I think, and just to preface this one, because I'm like, oh, this is the one that makes me the most nervous, is I suspect that it's fair to say that both of our speakers have the same kind attitude towards trans people. It's just that they may have different ways in which they might think that how we can best treat trans people or how society can kind of be best off overall. And so I just want to kind of preface that, that I think this will hopefully go smooth, so here we go, guys. Whoever would like to start, I'm open to, if you guys if any, either. Go for it, Karl. Sure. I think that unlike abortion, a person's body is their own property and they're entitled to the fruits of that, and that means that as an informed, an adult that can give informed consent, they can modify their body in any way, which way they please. I really don't have any particular opinions on this. But I do have concerns when we start introducing things like puberty blockers, which, if I recall correctly, are a form of chemical castration, which then leads on to actual castration. And this can all be done quite young in Britain. These procedures are not very well developed. They're quite experimental as are the drugs. We don't know what the long term effects are, but there are suggestions that increases cancer rates and things like that. I think that it's the sort of thing that we possibly shouldn't be grooming children into, and I think there is a significant aspect in that at the moment in my country, it's led by rabid activists who are commanding the dialogue because other people are just too afraid to speak out or they're actively silenced, which is a concern of mine. I don't like censorship either. So, yeah, adults concerning adults should be able to do what they like. But I don't think it should be should be something that we encourage children to do. Thanks so much. OK. Yeah, obviously, I agree with Sargon and that adult should be able to do whatever they like with their body. I have good news for Sargon. He's been completely misinformed on puberty blockers. I understand the discourse has shifted somewhat. Initially, conservative people argued mostly against just trans people. And now that that battle is being sort of lost slowly, we move now to more what they can seem to be indefensible aspects of this thing. So here we go. Again, I can provide the link here. It's so like puberty blockers are safe, well studied, completely reversible, endorsed by critical medical and endocrinological associations and effective at reducing dysphoria, anxiety and depression. If it turns out, you don't end up having a gender dysphoria. Why is the link so this is just a news link. And I can provide like academic citations following that. I will be bringing those in soon. Do. The human right. Yes. So that's a deadline. Well, I can figure that. Anyway, as I speak, the they are essentially quite well tested because they had medical use prior to their implementation as puberty blockers. I take issue with your use of the term grooming to describe like we're grooming kids into it. I don't think that's how it happens at all. Usually this is children who are 10, 11, 12, you know, sort of not quite pubestant and it is suggested or sort of picked up on that they may have early onset gender dysphoria or indications they might have it in the future. They speak with a psychiatric professional and the professional can delay their puberty through puberty blockers for a short time until they make the decision whether or not they actually want to commit. If they don't commit, they can get off those puberty blockers. And if they do, then obviously there you go wrong, puberty prevented. Thanks so much. So to be clear, I mean, I'm not aware of what source you're using to suggest that puberty blockers are not a form of chemical castration. Where are you? Where are you seeing that exactly? What is what do you mean by chemical castration? Well, it means they can't reproduce. Well, they're pre-pubescent, so no. Yeah, so it is. Well, it delays puberty. Yeah. And if they're not in, no, not indefinitely. It's reversing. You can just stop taking it and then your puberty will happen. Right. You might be a little bit shorter if you were assigned male at birth. I think that I think that is the case. Like a half inch or an inch or something. But I guess I would have to go and look it up because I've got lots of sources here that on Google, obviously, that suggest that it is. But I can't read through the studies as we are also. I don't know who to believe on who's right and who's wrong on that. But the full blown treatment of, I mean, you're not going to say that's not castration, right? Oh, well, bottom surgery. Yeah, of course. Yeah, absolutely. It's obviously castration. I'd say I'm probably not in favor of sexual reassignment surgery for children, even if they're absolutely 100 percent trans and have gender dysphoria, that's probably something they should hold off on. Why? Because the reversibility of that condition is significantly less than the reversibility of other preemptive stages to that point. And there are lots of trans people who are comfortable keeping the genitalia they were born with, and that might be a decision they would prefer holding off on until until they're sort of old enough to sign their own consent forms. I could maybe maybe there are good arguments for them to be able to do it at 16 or something. I need to read those, though, right now. I mean, I fully agree with your argument there. I think that's a very well put argument, actually. But I really do think there are essentially what you can categorize as a grooming operation, that there seems to be deliberate attempts in order to make children who are not certain about themselves and a lot of children are not to get them to identify as trans. And when it's being promoted by schools and media outlets, things like there's Teen Vogue, stuff like this, this is what it becomes trendy. This is why you have the transgender phenomenon. And I think that there's probably an argument against making transgendering cool and popular. I realize that it's not easy being trans and that you're going to have a lot of other problems in your life. But I think that erring on the side of caution and prudence with such a serious concern, a serious life event is probably wise. So so a few points here, grooming is the act of preparing a child with the attention of committing a sexual offense. Seeing as how nothing about the process of treating transgender children is a sexual offense, it seems like a weird word to use. I see I have seen and I have looked into this because this comes up so I have seen no evidence of there being this broad conspiracy for the media and schools to trick children into thinking they're trans. What I have seen and I will concede this point is that there are some trans-oriented psychiatric or medical institutions that have maybe been over prescribing diagnoses of gender dysphoria. But we over prescribe everything, at least here in America, everything gets over prescribed. I swear to God, everyone and their dog is autistic now. So so I don't know if this is part of like some conspiracy to make people trans. And it speaks to an earlier point that you made, too. You said like these organizations are falling to bias from activist groups. But I haven't seen that as well. And that seems like the refuge of the anti-intellectual. When the data disagrees with you, you back up and say that the data isn't real data. Actually, it's just it's just being sort of cajoled there by by by the weight of activist groups and real scientists would disagree with it. When, of course, in reality, the scientific community pretty much has a consensus on the issue. Thank you. Can you hear me? Oh, yeah, we got you. Yeah, yeah, you went a bit robotically, but I think I got you. I totally disagree that there's not a problem with trans activists in the UK at least. But I think you've got a problem with trans activists in America as well. And these are not necessarily trans people, either, but just the activists in favor of it. I think that given the weight of the decisions that you're making about your body, even any kind of chemical treatment, these chemicals do give an increased risk of cancer. Let's assume that they don't catch it. But I think that they do. But let's assume they don't. There are still other negative effects. And you go to your process and other bone problems and things like this. It's not generally a favorable thing to want to do. And so if we're over-prescribing things, over-prescribing paracetamol, not so bad, over-prescribing hormone treatments, probably, again, I think something we should be more prudent about. I totally stand by that the use of the term grooming there. I think that's correct as you described it. But then I guess I'm not as woke as you. Well, no, it's just factually incorrect to groom a child is to prepare them for sexual offense. Yeah. Do you think that making do you think that providing medical care to a trans child is sexually assaulting or molesting them? Well, when you say sexual offense, I think that can that can be expanded to include things regarding their sexuality that aren't sexually assaulting them. So how exactly I think that there are definitely I mean, there are definitely a sizable number of young men who are effeminate and gay, who are I do think it is groomed into believing. They are actually women in men's bodies, but they don't agree. And they well, no, it's not they don't agree. They're confused, they're persuaded into it and then come out of the other side hopefully before they've had the surgery. I suppose. So here's a link from a Eureka alert, Eureka Alert. Sorry, medical intervention and transgender adolescents appears to be safe and effective. It's from San Francisco. I don't know if that city is to SJW for you or whatever. There is no evidence. It is actually. Well, then you're free to dismiss all the credible academic and scientific evidence. Well, that's the thing. You say it's credible, but I'm you're really going to dismiss evidence because it came from San Francisco. I was joking about you. Are you actually going to stand by that? Isn't God. Perfected created by man, right? So so what you're describing right now is anti. I'm not sure. Yeah, wait, Carl, are you here once that question? I don't know if the audience heard you, Carl, in partiality and Carl, that's not that's not legitimate. But you're rejecting evidence and it's it's the same principle. It's ideologically covered and can be. Carl, you were literally arguing against the concept of it here on the face. I couldn't actually hear Carl. So I just want to because I think my audio, what I'm hearing is, I think what's going out on OBS. I just wanted to see Carl. Maybe just those last like he was probably like three sentences or his robotic. Yeah, James, I can summarize. He said that when evidence agrees with him, how about you let me summarize my points, you'll take twice as long, but go for it. Well, I think that these people are deeply ideological. I think that everyone following the trans agenda, shall we call it, is very ideologically invested in this. And same with any kind of ideological group, in my opinion, if I were to present you studies from Nazi Germany that suggested that actually, you know, the utterment does deserve the gas or whatever, you would say, well, OK, you may have what appears to be evidence in your hand of X. However, I don't trust the way in which it was gathered. Now, it doesn't mean that the actual process of gathering the data was wrong. But what it means is the things that are being collected. The editorial bias in the information is in what you are looking for and how you interpret what you have. We don't have time to go through one another's studies right now. So I'm not just going to accept a study from California that says, oh, by the way, trans transitioning appears to be safe and effective. Yeah, so this. So, yeah, this is literally just anti-intellectualism. Essentially, if a study provides. Wait, holy shit, Carl. But I think it might be that Carl's connection dropped. I don't know if he was done. Medical boards say these are so sorry, Carl. Untested Carl, I don't know if you can hear me. And we're going like there's a Carl, so sorry to stop you. We totally can't hear you. Yeah, is he still going? I can't hear anything you're saying. Oh, sorry, Carl. So I think that sorry, stop, stop. I think it's the last like 15 seconds to be honest. Yes, I can hear voice talking, then it started robotting. So. OK, so yeah, I think it was like right around there. We couldn't tell if you were done or if it was. If the connection was getting weak. If you if you want to give a chance to if you want a chance to give those last 15 seconds or so, we can give you that 15 seconds back. Yeah, I think I am. I would need to go through the thing myself to to be sure that I'm not dealing with a group that is obviously ideologically biased. So I don't just take the thing on face value. Gotcha. OK, are we good? You bet. OK, so what Carl is describing here is literally like the height of anti intellectualism, we can set aside idea like ideological differences for a moment. I've argued with people who have very different ideas that I do, obviously. What he did was he saw a study and he found a reason to not believe it. And then he decided why he shouldn't believe it. The Nazis were an organization that had empirical evidence of having engaged in bias research. Additionally, even if you looked at the research itself, the bias was evident in the text. Carl has not looked at this this paper source, nor its methodology, but he has decided, in spite of having provided no evidence in favor of his point, that there's this conspiracy to deliberately groom children into being trans. He's decided that this one just it's like it just it doesn't agree with him. So, you know, why pay it any mind? That's kind of how he handles most of his most of his engagement with research. And that's one of the things that frustrates me. There's actually no point in having this conversation, much in the same way that I wouldn't probably wouldn't waste my time arguing with a flat earther or a or a or like the anti-vaxxer. It's because I'm only capable of engaging in scientific discussion of scientific topics if people believe fundamentally in the concept of empiricism. But Sargon of Akkad and he does this. He is now asserted that there is a conspiracy to groom, again, misappropriation of that term, young children into being trans. He provides no evidence of this. He rejects evidence to the contrary. And then he says everybody involved in the trans issue is highly ideological. You can't trust what they produce, meaning that there is no evidence that would sort of assuage him. He's an SJW, essentially. He's a person who very fiercely and emotionally believes, you know, very strong conviction to his values and he'll scream and he'll throw his arms around. But at the end of the day, the reason you can't really get through to this person is because they don't believe in the concept of empiricism. They don't believe really in being rational. And with that, James, I understand this may be a little bit sort of, you know, unconventional. I'm totally OK. I need the topic right there. I've provided sources to back my claim. I don't see any counter sources or even arguments in favor of them. And Carl, if you want to have like a last word and then we can get to questions, that's fine. If you if you want to shit sling, if you just to say, if you want to shit sling, just come on my channel. We can throw aside the debate form and we can talk about it. We can just laugh and laugh and laugh. But when I come in for like a formalized debate with a moderator, I like it when my opponent believes in the concept of evidence. So go ahead. We'll give a solid. I'm sure you do. Right. So I I would say to anyone listening, take what Vosha said about me and see if it applies to him. For example, ask yourself, why did he choose the first Google search for a poll that agreed with him? Is that well, this poll agrees me end of conversation. There we go. I've got two polls that don't agree with him, but why are they not relevant? So it's Vosha is doing exactly the same thing he's accusing me of doing. I'm not saying I've never I don't think there's a conspiracy. So Vosha's lying. However, he knows that it sounds like it's a smear. It sounds like a conspiracy. Oh, my God. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy. There's a movement. It's an active cultural movement. They're very open about this that they have websites and advocates and and legal representation. You know, this is this movement. It's not a conspiracy. There's no need for any of this to be in. It's all being done in the open. The the one that Vosha doesn't seem to understand and in thinking that he can apply appeal simply to the science. A that the science isn't settled on this issue. Like I keep saying, that's the problem. We are we are still unsure of what the long term consequences of all this is because it's all so new and there seem to be some very bad long consequences, which I think probably helps to account for the 40 percent suicide attempt rate in the trans community. So I think that being cavalier about this and shouting down people or misrepresenting them and trying to describe them as essentially evil, which is what Vosha has done, is exactly the kind of problem I'm talking about. It's exactly why I would use the term grooming because this can be. I mean, I can emotionally resist this because I know how much for joke Vosha's opinions on these are, but a young person might not. It might be intimidated into it, especially if it's not just one person doing it. Everything and everyone is ideological. If the radical left is to be believed on in any way. And to be honest with you, I think on that point, they are correct. I remember back when I first started not really understanding that point. And it has been through long study that I've come to realize that they are correct, that everyone is in some way ideological. To say that they're not means that they just don't recognize how they are ideological. These these studies, undoubtedly, I would have to go through. I don't know that they're all wrong. I didn't make that all ideal. However, I think a lot of them are and the ones that are are actually quite intimidating to ones aren't. I don't have the link up because I don't think I need it. But there was an article on The Guardian yesterday, I believe it was, that was specifically talking about an academic who was getting her work shut down because it was she was just researching into trans issues and she was finding answers that the trans community online didn't like and various, very put points of pressure were being put on the faculty and establishment she worked for. So, yeah, I think there is there is actually a kind of you can argue is too strong, but I think in effect, it amounts to it. At least some of the cases and because of the seriousness of this as a topic, I don't think any of the cases should amount to grooming, but then I don't think that any of the workers in our country should be exploited through mass immigration. So, yours. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Yeah, just if anyone's curious why he talks like that, you would have to, too, if you didn't have any evidence to back up your claims. Hold on one sec. Just to go into the Q&A before there any more. Long before there's any more conversation. All right. So here we go. Thanks so much, everybody, for your questions. Very excited to read these. Next up, let's see. I'm going to try to read these and try to make sure I understand them as best as possible. Let's see. Steven Steen. Thanks for your super chat. It says, we appreciate your donation to Trump 2020, Vosh. He's a joker. Ah, you got me again. You sneaky bugger. I didn't actually donate to Trump 2020. No, you'll you'll get my chat next time. Gosh, thanks so much. Saddest, John, question to Sargon. Do you support the personal ownership of nuclear weapons? That's an excellent question. No, I think that some things can and should probably be regulated. Weak. Next time. I know, right? No, McNooks for me. But thankfully with nuclear weapons, I think it's highly unlikely that private individuals will really be able to get them. But even even if they somehow, it's probably best that we just don't. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Let's see. Mothra J. Disco, thanks so much for your question. They asked Sargon, would you join? I don't know what I think this is something to do with North Korea. If I remember, would you join Jewish gang? Bless the commune fans have gotten Jewish gang left less to come in. I'm not I'm not familiar with that term, I'm afraid. If it's anything like Nazbol, possibly when liberalism fails, that's where I'll go. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Adam, friend, we know, Carl. Thanks for your question, Adam, friend did make compelling points. The he says the only people who want to start worker co-ops are people you would never want to work with. I think that's for you, Vosh. I'd say that's fairly countered by the data that a worker co-ops have a tendency to be more resilient to market fluctuation and price shocks, meaning that they're very good at weathering unfavorable business conditions and B, they have a higher average level of worker satisfaction within those who work there. So it's good. That's a good shot, a little pop there. But once again, the studies disagree. But that's OK. You know, maybe maybe one day evidence. Why is it that people don't just work at worker co-ops if it's a great darn? Well, if only we had a chance to go into the institutional barriers to the formation of worker co-ops. Funny, funny thing, though. Did you know that there were small attempts at forming private businesses back during the feudalism days that were constantly being squashed by the monarchy? Why then did more serfs not go ahead and participate in this? That's that's totally untruly. I know you're talking about. I'm sorry. Wait, why are you saying what I just said was incorrect? Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about. But I'd like to ask you a question about the formation. Yeah, you don't. But the formation of worker co-ops. What's the institutional barrier to that? I want to know. Sure. OK, so the first one is ideological. That would be people like you, who misrepresent data, who convince people that that private ownership is sort of the way forward. There are the ideological arguments against the salience of collective ownership. That's the biggest hurdle. You've got to convince people that an idea is right before they'll back it. This is in the case for every political paradigm. But that is the only hurdle, isn't it? No, there are institutional hurdles as well. Banks are much less likely to loan out to worker co-ops in spite of the fact that they're actually more likely to survive the first three years of business than traditionally managed firms because there is a broader preconception that worker co-ops are less effective than privately owned firms, which doesn't seem to be the case through the data. So that's an idea. So hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. Why don't you take the time to go through the data before asking me questions? I can't advocate for questions. I'm not an advocate for this. You are the one who's here to educate people in worker co-ops. It's your position. Or in the Q&A segment, Carl. I do want to... Hit me up in my live journal. Twitted me, Carl. No, I don't have Twitter account. What is the reason that banks don't have this data? Like, why don't they care about the data? If a worker co-op is more guaranteed to give a return, are they literally ideologically predisposed to hate comments? Because bank lenders don't have all of this data in front of them and bank owners don't want worker co-ops to be more popular. It's against their ideological interests. Given that the original question... So they've all got a shared ideological interest. I'm deferring to James here. I don't know why we're going off of this. This is Q&A. Just to try to get through as many questions as we can. I think the original one from Adam was from Vosh. So we'll jump to the next one. Oliver Katwell, thanks so much for your question. Actually, wait, we do have one. Nestleig 20, really relevant. So this is for Sargon this time. It says, regarding your argument, quote, if worker co-ops are so great, why isn't it the dominant system? They said, if UK IP was so great, why isn't it the dominant UK party? See the fallacy now? That's what they had said. No, that's not the same economic model that we're talking about, right? And it's an economic model that follows market forces. It's not a political party that's looking for votes. And if it is more economically stable and can work where the negative outcomes and negative market fluctuations, whatever happens more, more reliably than the alternatives, then what would be the argument against it? You know, it's like saying, well, women, what the gender pay gap, women get paid and less the men. Well, why does anyone have a higher amount? You know, why would you? Gosh, thanks so much. Appreciate that. Next up, we have Oliver Katwell. Thanks for your question. They said, I work with the mentally ill. Socialism would help their housing. Capitalism drives better medicines, which they can't afford. How can we fix this? I mean, I take a good shot at that. There's no denying that private firms have done a ton of work producing pharmaceuticals, but one of the reasons why pharmaceutical costs are so high in this country is because the government and insurance agencies don't negotiate their prices down. There's no reason for the insurance agencies to because they benefit because people can't pay the upfront cost and they have to be insured. And likewise, you know, the government doesn't because meddling in private capture and what have you, the both solutions, both problems can be solved by unifying the interests of those who are in power with the interests of the population of this country, working to implement market socialism would go a long way towards aligning the production of our pharmaceutical industries with the needs of our broader population, because they would no longer be able to, you know, collaborate with our elected officials to make it so that we can't negotiate drug prices and what have you. Also, a lot of medical research is done in universities, which is which is publicly funded. So there's already like a pretty heavy public element to that stuff. Sorry, I didn't mean to ramble. No problemo. Thanks so much. Just just to answer that, I do I do think that there is I'm not a huge proponent of private health care, actually, I'm a liberal, not libertarian. You know, I don't think it's unacceptable or anything. But they do make the argument that it will slow down innovation and it will slow down the rate of cures, frankly. And I think there probably is some merit to that. I think it's just something. A mural. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Next up, appreciate your question from. Let's see. That's. Bryce Nance, thanks for your question. They said, Zuck might have consent, but not informed consent. So I think they're talking about Zuckerberg and Facebook. That's true. Zuck is fucking fucking America over. Not even getting proper, not even getting proper consent. The fields. Let's give Carl a chance. Well, how are you defined yet? You have a question. What does informed consent look like for someone using Facebook? Gotcha. Thanks so much. Next up, appreciate it. Let's see. Mathura J. Disco got a critic here. They say migration watch is a fascist site, Sargon. So if you want to give a defense of migration, watch is not a fascist site. It is not a fascist site. That's ridiculous. Thanks so much. General Balsak. That's the real name, by the way. OK, thanks so much. We appreciate your question. They say, why, Vosh, why do we not see more co-ops being formed in the US if it's a better model? That's because something is a better model doesn't mean that it is a better model for everyone, nor does it be mean that people in power want to implement it, nor does it see mean that the best model will automatically be implemented. I think that capitalism is better than feudalism took quite a bit for capitalism to come about, even though the material conditions that which necessitate that allow for capitalism were present many hundreds of years ago. It took a little bit for it to get off the ground. The idea that better systems just automatically win is ridiculous. Slavery is bad. I think most of us watching would probably agree with that. You'll find that slavery was in existence for most of human history. I think most people here would agree. Maybe maybe now I'm reaching a little bit that women should be able to vote. That was not the case for a long time. I don't know how many of you believe businesses should be able to discriminate against black people, but my parents or just about around back when that was legal, just because something is good, doesn't mean it just happens. You have to fight tirelessly for what you believe is right. Every day of your life until you die. And that is what it means to be human. Gotcha. Let's see. Thanks. Can I what was the was the first point made just because something's better doesn't mean it's not adopted? Was it? Yeah. So it was interesting if something's more effective. And I think you're conflating moral, good and practical efficiency there. But if something's more effective, how would it not become the norm? It was it would have been more effective for businesses to accept black patronage in most firms, but for 70 years after the abolition of slavery, most businesses didn't accept black money, even though that would have empirically led. Hang on, that didn't didn't the government actually implemented Jim Crow laws, didn't it? The the business. No, Jim Crow law meant that a business had the right to refuse service. Not that like businesses were forced to not allow black people in. I'll have to look that up. I've heard I've heard differently. But sorry, Karen. Got you. Thanks so much. Rugal McDahl, thanks for your super chat. They said the English are an ethnic group forged in Britain by the confluence of indigenous salts and invading Germanics. Thanks. I had a feeling I was saying that. Yeah, correct. Appreciate it. That's a correct statement. Trans Trans ethnocism is not a thing, Vosh. Um, I don't know what trans ethnocism means. I'm part Irish, Polish, German and very minor sliver of me is English. I don't know. I don't know what that means. I mean, if people ask me my like my nationality, I say American ethnicity. I usually default to Polish because that's 50 percent. My ethnic identity. What if I didn't have a majority? What if I had a kid and that kid was like 33 percent Polish 24 percent? What if it's split between two? What if it's a 50 50 mix of Korean? Like, like, I don't that's why it's based on stuff. Identification. Well, no. Yes, well, that's what every census is. What do you feel like and that people fill out? Maybe you can identify as an ethnicity, but that doesn't mean you're identifying as that culture. It just means you're identifying as that culture is a part of ethnicity. So no, no, no, no, no, because ethnicity is a component in many cases of a person's heritage culture is literally it's there's nothing genetic whatsoever about culture. If I look at a Korean culture as part of your heritage, though, you inherit your culture. You don't you don't inherit the ethnic group you live in. Culture, how can you not? You adopt the culture of whatever environment you grow up in. That's a form of inheritance. Yeah, from your environment. You don't invent your own cultures. Your ancestors. If your environment is your your your direct ancestors, your parents, your grandparents, if that was the case, then if that was the case, then there would be the American identity. But yet, there wasn't a fact in spite of the fact that there are Korean people and Irish people and Persian people and all sorts of people in my hometown of Beverly Hills, they all act pretty, pretty much exactly the same. It's all the same culture, really. A lot of it's very bad things, but it's it's amazing. It's the same culture. The idea that like because you have Korean parents, that means you're automatically inducted into like Korean culture. This is this is ethnic. This is ethnic essentialism, which is again inherent to the ideology of ethno status and white nationalists. So whose culture do they inherit? I want to give a watch. Yeah, we are in the queue. I don't know why you keep jumping on my answer. But these are important questions. Culture inherent culture. You get it from your environment. Yeah, but that's an inheritance. OK, so here's a quick question. Then we can end this quick question. Then we can end this. OK, if you're born, if you're born to two parents, OK, and they're Korean, OK, and you're a little Korean baby in Korea. And then it's just a coincidence. They turn out to be Korean. Ethnically, no. But then they get swept off into the Pacific as well. Carl, Carl, I'm not done. Then they get thrown off into the ocean. Carl, you actually can't control yourself. They get thrown off into the ocean. The baby floats across the Pacific. They get raised in Los Angeles. What do you think their culture is going to be? But they weren't raised by Koreans, were they? No, but they are ethnically Korean. Well, no, they're racially Korean. OK, all right, never mind. I can't define a racially Korean. What I want to do is I want to give Vashal last word because that's the difference, that's the point. Like, we're not talking about race. We are talking about ethnicity, which is culture and beliefs and values and heritage and history. And it's a bunch of things wrapped up and you want to reduce it down to. And as soon as I say, but that's not race. Oh, now, none of it makes sense. You know, you you're being dishonest. Give you a chance to respond, Vash, just because the question was originally for you and then we got to go to the next question. I just the viewers can Google the difference between race, ethnicity and culture if they like. I don't know what's it's honestly astonishing to me is that Carl's kept the grifts going for this long. But yeah, like, I'm not a white nationalist. It's OK not to understand ethnic ethnic identification is is usually something that you sort of it's your heritage. But it doesn't directly infer upon your culture. There are literally hundreds of millions of people in America who would identify ethnically with something other than American. And they are nonetheless bound to American culture that's not a trace of their original culture left to modify their behavior apart from whatever trace bits you get through, you know, sort of assimilation and and you know, just broader culture that disseminates. But that's a simple definition problem. I'm sure he'll fix it eventually. Rumpley Depew, that's only because you're the one country enlightenment just to try to give just because the question originally is for Vash and then Rumpley Depew, thanks for your question. They said, when you take questions, can you ask each one if they would be OK with voluntary worker co-ops for those who want worker ownership as opposed to government enforced government enforcement on all businesses or businesses of a certain size? That was a mouthful. I can read it again if you like. No, no, I got it. Yeah, of course. No, you go for it. Yeah, no, no, I think that's absolutely fine. Like, yeah, voluntary association is no question at all. And this is, I think, honestly, I think it's the reason why Vorsch has to make up conspiracy theories about the beliefs, the universal beliefs of bankers to explain the lack of proliferation of worker co-ops. But I think I think it's a fine thing that these different kinds of things exist. I just don't think they should necessarily be imposed on people who haven't actually done anything illegal. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Appreciate it. Next up, appreciate your question from... Oh, I didn't get an answer there. Oh, sorry about that. Go ahead. Oh, no worries. I just want to say, of course, I would be fine with a voluntary implementation of this. I think it's funny that Karl would accuse me of engaging conspiracy theories, given the context of the debate that we just had. But with that being said, I do think that it is a step forward, broadly, the implementation of worker co-ops, and there have been many sort of steps forward that have to be implemented for policy. Of course, I'm in favor of sort of the voluntary argument as it can be done. But there are ideological and financial barriers that I think need to be addressed in a top-down perspective after, of course, very, very heavy grassroots advocacy that we need to convince people this is a good idea. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Stealth creations. Thanks for your super chat as well. They said, should we not be free to dismiss the evidence on San Francisco when they and other California cities prescribe passing as merely a misdemeanor instead jailable crime? Pat. Sorry, say that again. What was the misdemeanor part of that? To read it exactly as they wrote it, they said, should we not be free to dismiss the evidence on maybe SF when they and other California cities prescribe passing as merely a misdemeanor instead of jailable crime? I'm just going to go ahead and say that it's pretty irrational to dismiss studies because they came out of, I mean, to dismiss studies because they came out of cities that have a law or ordinance you dislike. But I'll admit, I'm a little lost on this one. I'm swimming in the deep ocean. I agree with Vosch that it is irrational to dismiss things just like them. I think that the left has a big smack in the face from his statement. Gotcha. Let's see. Thanks so much. Next up, Rumpley De Pew. Thanks for your question. They said, can you ask them why they think that trans people's dysmorphia and dysphoria are affirmed while others, such as anorexic people, have similar body image symptoms but are not supported? Is this ideological? I'll take this if that's all right. Yeah, I think I'll have to correct you when you're done. But yeah, go for it. I'm sure you think you will. The lack of affirmation comes from the empirical observation of the damage that the thing does. The radical left at the moment, the sort of woke, progressive types. Oh, they're against body shame. They're all for you being as anorexic or fat as you choose to be. They think that any kind of coercion in this regard, any kind of suggestion in this regard is coercion and you should be fat phobic, bigot. Check your thin privilege. OK, so he just wanted to do like he just wanted to pretend it was 2014 again, you go for the anti-HGW talking points. So yeah, in regards to an actual answer to that question, it's true, we do have to look at the empirical consequences of supporting both the contrary to what huh? Go ahead, carry on. OK, contrary to contrary to what Carl said here, I don't lefties. Don't promote anorexia, usually anorexia and other forms of body dysmorphia, non-gender dysmorphia are a product of social beauty standards that are most heavily critiqued by the feminist movement. There's the body positivity movement. Some people say the body positivity movement doesn't go too far or far enough or whatever. But the reason why is because if you tell anorexic person what an anorexic person believes, which I'm sorry, I haven't had anorexia. I'm not trying to be like blip here, but I imagine that anorexic people, if you encourage them and don't challenge them, you lead them down less healthy roads. I can say that sort of, you know, obliquely, whereas with regards to trans people, medical treatment for trans people and social transition for trans people have overwhelmingly positive effects on outcomes for them, drastically decreases depression, drastically decreases suicide attempts, drastically decreases anxiety, just makes things infinitely better for them. So that's why, you know, ultimately with medicine, do no harm. Transitioning trans people is good, helps them encouraging anorexic people that they're not skinny enough, I guess, is the implication, does not help them. Gotcha. Let's see. We do have a clarification. Thanks, stealth creations on that last question. As what they meant to say was, I think this is interesting. That's why I'm going back to it. So they said, should we not be free to dismiss the evidence on San Francisco when they and other California cities prescribe passing AIDS as merely a misdemeanor instead of a jailable crime? Yeah, OK, I have the OK. So the only reason they did that and I've gone over this exact thing for. So for one, yes, dismissing studies because they came out of people who happened to work in a state that passed a given law. This is incredibly irrational. But the reason why they did that is to bring the penalty for passing AIDS along knowingly down to the level that it is at for other STIs. And the reason they wanted that is because studies found. We like our empiricism over here. Studies found that the felony charge for knowingly passing on AIDS or HIV was discouraging people who felt they might have AIDS or HIV from getting tested. Because if you're tested and you know you have it, then spreading it is deliberate, which is a felony crime. Whereas if you don't know you have it, if you don't have that piece of paper letting you know that you have HIV or AIDS, then you just spreading it around. It doesn't have any legal consequences. Bringing it down to a misdemeanor was a way of increasing the number of people who would get STI tests and since its implementation has been effective in reducing the spread of AIDS in the state of California. That's the reason why. Got a shot. Thanks so much. Can you respond if you want, Carl? Otherwise, if you want. Yeah, we'll just chalk Vosh upon me. It's OK to give some an AIDS bandwagon next. Next, Mike. Oh, God, that was a funny joke. Sorry. I can't tell with you, Carl, because half the shit you say is a carrot. OK, maybe make it dumber next time so I can distinguish the next step. I appreciate it. You guys have got to go to chemistry. That's the tone it down for old buddies. Sorry, Mike Hillier. Thanks for your question. They said there was a study about rapid onset dysphoria that was removed because it would upset people not because it was wrong or flawed. That's why you should question it. No, no, I have the data on this as well. The study on rapid onset dysphoria used horrible data that was collected here. I have this on my document under studies to watch out for. But that's OK. That's why I wrote the document. Happy to have it. So studies are referring to the same study because here, because this is the one that termed rapid onset gender dysphoria, I have it right in front of me. So this is commonly cited by people to indicate that transness spread socially and that exposure to trans material might encourage young people to be trans, but this is not legitimate data. The study polled parents, not the actual children, and those polls were taken online and those sites were biased from places like Fourth Wave Now, transgender trend and youth trans critical professionals. Whatever your opinion of these sites may be, this is illegitimate data collection that does not reflect any biological reality. Right. But we don't know, do we? No, we do know this. This this wouldn't pass a high school book report. This is this is not legitimate. And I can go over it. I'm sure you've been honest about the research. I can I literally have the academic training to go over this and show you where the methodology fails to prove the point they were intending to prove. I have a data collection as one of the things I study. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Stupid whore energy as she likes to call herself very sick. She says there is a structure in the forebrain in trans women known to be important to sexual behavior that is closer to that of cisgender women than cisgender men. How is that for godly evidence? There is kind of like the pink brain blue vein argument is there. I I I tend to argue gender being an identity thing. So even if so that affirms the validity of sort of the the the gender dysphoria argument like trans women or women, even like there's a biological predilection towards that, I say there's an identity component too. But I but I still agree with I still agree with that. The pink, the pink, pink brain, blue brain stuff, it's still good. You know, there's a lot of variability in sex. It's a it's a really murky topic. Really interesting stuff. Thanks so much. No problem. Aurora, thanks so much. Did you say you're you're on the hand, did you say you're on the trans women bandwagon? That that trans did I did I say trans men or women? I women that trans women trans women are women. When trans women are women, right? If I if I stumbled over my words there, then I apologize. Yeah, obviously. No, no, I think it was my glitching. I don't think it was you. OK, you agree with the statement, right? Well, I think trans women are women, of course. Right. So if you were going to settle down and start a family, you wouldn't distinguish between someone who is biologically female and a transition to be a woman. Of course I would. Trans women and cis women are different, just like tall women and short women are. I think that's absolutely something I should distinguish, especially if I wanted to have a kid, I probably wouldn't settle down with a trans woman. But there's still women like there are cis women who can't give kids. You know, yeah, they're just not not not quite like cis women. There is a difference. We agree. There yes, there is tall women, short women, black women, white women, shaved women, you bring you bring in the irrelevant categories now. Tall women and short women can still have children. So I don't think that. So what I don't think, yeah, and there are cis women who can't have children. That's not the only category. You can't just arbitrarily decide there's one valid category for what womanhood means and then like leave all the other ones at the door. There are thousands of adjectives that you could use to distinguish between women, but they're all women, all the same. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Well, they're not all the same. Then that's the point, isn't it? Well, they're all women, all the same. Like they're all women the same in spite of those differences, you know, unless there are genuine differences that you need to account for. So yes, I agree. There are differences between different women. They're just women. Just OK. Yeah. Sorry. Sister Friedo, thank you for your question. They said if someone is allowed to identify against their birth certificate regarding gender, they said, why can't a 20 year old identify as 70? And what's keeping me from getting SSI if it's who I am? I assume Carl has a lovely answer for this one. If you want to take this one for you, this one, well, first of all, you can transition to 70. Everyone does eventually. No, it's not an honest answer. No, of course. No, of course. OK, yes, that was a joke. Now, obviously, the reason why is that a there is a massive body of evidence to affirm the legitimacy of transgender people, whereas there is not for trans age people. If there was some massive sort of overwhelming scientific consensus indicating there are people who experience high levels of suicidality and anxiety and depression because they're upset, they're not like the age they think they are, then I guess we could look into it. I mean, I'm interested in seeing where the data goes. But right now, just as a matter of empiricism, we have to follow the problems that actually seem to exist. There are a few people out there who probably sincerely do believe they're like a six year old girl on the inside or something. And there have been people like this for all time, but there has not been a plurality of data on them the same way there has been. I thought you didn't care about feelings. Well, when we're talking about things like suicidality, the feelings of the people affected are literally the things we're trying to address. That's what medical science is. Same with identity and immigration, in fact. These are incomparable examples, but I appreciate your attempt to bring it back and make it seem like you weren't fucking demolished on every point you brought up. Earlier, I wasn't. Next up, the atheist, Brony, thanks for your question. They said, Sargon did ending slavery and property rights. Oh, no. Damn, I thought we had him. Got shit. Thanks so much. Comrade, I will say the argument's legitimate, though. I can't explain why to Sargon, but the argument is legitimate. Let's see. Comrade Croy, explain why. Because we're in the Q&A and because it's you. The problem with slavery, it's the violation of someone else's property rights. You own yourself. Someone else doesn't own you. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Hopefully, everybody heard that. It was a little bit. I picked it up on my end. Gotcha. Sorry, my thing cut out. That's what I heard. I heard so I assumed the audience heard or at least through my stream they did. I could make it out. So can you hear me? Now, yes, absolutely. Yeah, so the problem with slavery is the violation of property rights. You own yourself, no one else owns you. That's the problem. Got it. I think it might have been robotic. Make sure the next questions to me. We got this. Sorry. Let's see. Let me know, folks, if you didn't get that from Carl, we can go back to that question. Can you hear me? Yes. OK, yeah, it looks like they heard you, Carl. I got somebody in the chat. We heard the last thing you said. Yeah, thanks so much. So sorry, I don't know what's going on with my connection. I'm really sorry. No worries. It's all right. Comrade Courtney, thanks for your question. She said, Sargon, how do you feel about the hibernian question? Hmm. The hibernian question. I feel like I said this wrong, too. No, no, you nailed it. He doesn't know what's what. No, I don't know what's there. I've always for a strange sounding question. What's the hibernian question? It's the idea that a small, a small but extremely wealthy and prominent ethnic group has infiltrated the upper echelon of our society, politics, economy, pornography, and that they're using their anger by us to enact revenge against the against the Anglo Saxons. I'm not surprised a leftist would ask that question. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Let's see, we got one from Asu. Asu, thanks for your question. They said, let's see. They had to quote the verbatim to soy gone and SJV Vosh. Will you stop the what? I don't know exactly. I know I know what soy gone means. What does SJV Vosh mean? I assume it's like SJW like SJW because the two V's next to each other like so like SJW Vosh. Oh, gosh, OK. So thanks so much. Thanks for letting me needle you guys. They said, will you stop the matriarchal hell state of family courts? And in what way will you replace them? I you want to take this? Yeah, honestly, Vosh, I think you'll probably agree with me on this one. I'm just going to use the example of Britain because I'm more familiar with it. But it's basically the same in America too, as far as I'm aware. Essentially, family courts are actually really patriarchal. There's just the automatic assumption that the woman is the better caregiver. And the man the man is not. And men have to work very, very hard in order to be able to see their children, which is not is anti feminist in my opinion and in the opinion of many feminists as well. So it's one of those rare occasions that mean the feminists agree on something. But but it's it's born from the idea that men and women actually should be equal partners in parenting. But the British state, particularly, is actually really guilty of this. It's really patriarchal because you get some, you know, boomer, fucking judge who who, you know, just has this really ingrained patrimonia, sort of patronizing fatherly attitude and assuming the son is the instigator and the woman is the victim on every case. And it's it's not fair. You know, it's not you don't have to be any one particular ideology to to see that this is not equality. Yeah, I disagree with his flagrant use of the N word. But apart from that, I completely agree with it was no, but no, no, no, I completely agree. Yeah, 100 percent. I think yeah, almost everyone agrees on that one. It is a whole different generally. I think the sort of emotional baggage that we have regarding women and against men is definitely influencing and it's unfair. Yeah, it's pretty it's pretty fucked up. Yeah, I know I personally have a friend who was I personally have a friend who was a father. He's like a young father and he went to the park with this kid and he was accused of like being like one of the mums was like up at him. They thought she was like praying on kids or whatever. And he was just there with his kid, you know, and so I think. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, and it's nice that everyone can at least agree on that because I've met so many men whose lives have been destroyed by family courts destroyed, you know, and this I think that contributes to the male suicide rate, to be honest. If I had to if I had to point it to one particular thing that I think was the thing we should address, it's that I think that will help reduce male suicide. You bet. Thanks so much, Noah Watson. Thanks for your question. For Vosh, what do those economists for migration tend to think about forcing every company to be a co-op? The economists who argue in favor of immigration, I don't I don't think the economists that talk about that typically talk about the co-ops, co-ops are actually a very understudied subject in economics. I economics is one of my weaker subjects. I have some PhDs in my community who I talk to to try and like shore up my knowledge on this. Most of our knowledge on worker co-ops comes from sort of sort of just like longitudinal studies of the few that exist in a given place. I've got some in America, I've got some in Argentina, but we don't have like this really big like basis of theory. There might be a few more in non-English languages that just haven't been translated because the Mondragon Corporation, which is a worker co-op, comes from Spain and it's huge. So it's probable that their success has spawned some economic discourse that I can't read, but it's something I want to look more into. Definitely. Gotcha. We do have maybe an old buddy of yours, Sargon. Question from a super chat from Hunter Avalon. The movie is calling you out, Sargon. If you if you want, if you guys know. So let's see. I'm making an exception for this because it's just so juicy. People, you know, and I know Carl, you can take it. He says, Sargon, what is it like being so stupid and slippery? If you want to respond, you can, Carl. It's nice that he's finally joined the left. You got it. Thanks so much. You appreciate it. Sophie M. Let's see. Appreciate your question. Sophie, she's coming at you too, Carl. She says, Sargon, the study, they quote you. They say it to quote that the studies are ideologically motivated is a weak excuse not to engage with the research. Did you know that 99 percent of the trans people at any age do not regret transitioning? Give you a chance to respond, of course. I want to answer that. I would definitely like to see studies being done by people who don't have vested interest in this subject. It's just a fact. There's a huge amount of ideological bias surrounding this this topic. And I don't think that the the majority or not necessarily the majority, but just I don't think we can just take any one thing on face value. It's all it's it's terribly evolving for the people who it is about. And I don't trust the judgment in this specifically, to be honest. Like I'm saying I'm not saying they're all bad or good or anything like that. But I'm not just going to accept some random study from California on the face of it. You know, ultimately, the only the only reason anyone ever presents a study of anything is because it supports their views. That's it. Just make sure to supply data that agrees with Carl and he'll investigate it. But you only supply data that increase of you. Look at my immigration poll. I've got you don't have any counter data. Yes, I do. I've got to you fool. No, no, I was speaking first Google results. It was one cherry pick this to say, oh, well, there we go. That's my point proved and you're still standing on it. For one, I'll have you know that I would never deign to Google during a debate. My chat provided me that link for two. Well, that's very good of them. It's still the first Google result. It's more up to date than the other two polls you cited for three. One of the polls you cited didn't ask the question of a thousand people. Didn't ask the question that you were looking to answer. The question was, do we want to change immigration law? One of those polls was, do you think there are too many immigrants coming in? Those are similar, but not exactly the same. And then the next one migration. Seventy six percent wanted to reduce it. And migration is more than a little bit wrong with the data. You think it's ideologically corrupted, but you don't like the answer. It's giving you didn't even look for. Yeah, the difference being I provided counter evidence. You didn't provide any counter evidence for the trans issue. Yes, I did. You're just denying it because you don't like evidence for the trans issue. What evidence did you get? Watch poll. I'm to wait. I just said for the trans issue. Can you keep up? No, I'm not talking about the trans issue. It's the same thing. Right. I don't trust the evidence you're going to provide. You don't trust the evidence I'm going to provide. The difference, the difference being really quickly, really quickly. James, I'm going to hold this really, really quickly. The difference being when you provided polls I didn't like. I provided another piece of evidence that agreed with me and explained my reasons why I didn't like your data. When I provided evidence on the trans stuff that you didn't like, you just dismissed it offhand with no contrary. I don't have time to go through it. There's just a little difference there. It's a really fucking study right now. It's all different, but that's OK. You know, it's in the details. You know, you know that you're doing the same thing. I want to give, let's see, in case you want to give anything more than that pithy response, Carl, that the door is open, you can, because the question was originally for you. So I want to make sure that you have plenty of time to respond. And then we'll move to the next one. Remind me the question exactly again, please. It was the, did you know 99% of trans people at any age do not regret transition? Yeah, I was, I don't, I don't have the data in front of me. I'm not taking an assertion from a radical leftist. It doesn't even know the ideology of the person who asked. Just if he hears data he doesn't like, it's not round data. Eric, yeah, but it's the same. Everyone always produces data that supports their position. That's it. Then produce contrary data. Next up, we have so sorry, Vosh, to stop you. We got to go. OK, OK, stop. I've got a few studies to read through. We're going to wait because Vosh wants me to produce contrary data. What? Oh, are we going? I'm going to go and look up some studies that talk about the amount of trans and non trans and I'm. So the so the specific question, oh, he's, oh, he's gone, isn't he? James, maybe just ask a question that's directed at me. We, Carl, if you can hear us, I think your connections are going to wait for us. Well, what he did a Google search in the bandwidth was too much for us. We appreciate you having a good sense of humor, Carl. I don't know what the hell is going on with my connection today. It's absolutely awful. No problem. We know obviously I'm not going to go and read studies now. OK, that would be for a third. We've got that's true. A third time is a charm, you guys. I think people really enjoy watching you guys. It's next up. We've got let's see. Eric S coming at you from a philosophical angle, Vosh, they said, how does Vosh justify his quote, should statements because quote, unquote, should statements necessarily imply objective morality? I don't think they necessarily imply objective morality. I have epistemological axioms that I ground that that I ground in, you know, sort of the the foundational, you know, properly basic belief. And then from that point, you know, I make arguments that I think align with my axioms. So my basic axioms when I'm making arguments here are we should do something because it makes people's lives better. I think most people agree fundamentally with that. Maybe we can argue about the specifics or what it means for a person's life to be better. What does it mean to be happy versus fulfilled or what have you? But for example, if I say we should end slavery, I'm not really implying objective morality there. I'm just kind of making an appeal to a common sense of decency, or at least that's the hope. If everyone I'm talking to believes that in the hierarchy and believes that slaves are of a degenerate race that need to be kept in bondage to serve their masters and that's not, and they don't believe that like in a, in a foundation, they believe that like not in utilitarian sense, but foundationally, I could never make an argument with these people. I just talked to people who I assume have shared values. And I believe most people, even Sargon's audience, who I imagine share many disagreements with me, fundamentally want the world to be made a better place. So that's why I think I think it should be done because it would make the world better. That's my sort of common ground. Gotcha. Next up. Let's see. Can I, can I just, just, just give me a quick response. Yeah, yeah, yeah, very, very quickly. Should statements don't require objective morality. They just require morality. All morality is subjective. It's just one of those things. You just, it's, you know, your, your particular moral position is what is the imperative behind the odd statement. And it's up to others to whether they agree you've got to provide good argument. Thanks so much. Benjamin Holm, I appreciate your question. And we've got to, I forgot to mention folks, well, we're going to try to close the Q and A. So I totally, we've got a good list of questions that I want, like, Carl's actually remember he's, was it, I'm in Colorado. So it's, he's got to be, I think, I think it's seven hours ahead of me. So was it 1140 over there, Carl? It is. Okay. So I want to make sure Carl gets out of here on time. He's already been here for, I anticipated it to be like an hour and a half. So it's, we've been going for a while. And I wanted to ensure that. Sorry about that. I don't know if you would like day plans or whatever. Has this really been two hours and 40, two and a half hours? Oh my goodness. I'm just, I'm zooming over here, you know? So we can let you, I can't believe it. This is honestly, it's just, it's been such a good time. I'm like, I would have guessed it's been like an hour and 50 minutes. But just to, we want to close the Q and A intake just to try to get through as many of what we have and let Carl go to sleep. But Benjamin Holm, thanks for your question. They said, Sargon, if your issue regarding immigration is purely cultural, why did you bring up the point that a percent of people don't identify as, quote, white British? Is that for me? Yep. Sorry, you'll have to, you'll have to say it again. My bloody connection. I wasn't even Googling that time. No. So they said, Sargon, if your issue regarding immigration is purely cultural, why did you bring up the point that a percent of people don't identify as, quote, white British? Yeah, that's just the category on the census. I don't care about the white British bit. I do actually have, hang on a second. Do actually have a bit more in-depth where there are other aspects of the census. Let me just get the data up here. So you've got like, you've got, you've also got the national categories. So you've got like English only identity. So those people who only identify as English, in London, it's three million out of eight million. So most people in London consider themselves to be English. I think that's a concern. It's nothing to a race. Gotcha, you got it. And let's see, just to, because you've still got questions coming in, we appreciate it folks, but just to, I mean like, to kind of respect, especially for Carl, going to sleep on a decent time. Is it fair to say? I'm actually in no hurry. I'm quite in night out also. Okay, you bet. So we'll keep going. If they, if they, you guys just let me know if you've got like something where you're like, hey, I'm starting to tire out. Give me like a five minute warning and we'll, that way we'll know like when to wrap it. You want to go just to keep a clean number. You want to go to like four or so or 20 minutes. I'm okay with going till four Pacific time. So another 18 minutes or so. And I think that's a good idea. So next up, Hobbit Spartan. Vosh, thanks for your question. They said, Vosh, would capitalism adopt co-ops if they weren't, if they were so efficient? So let me read that again. I screwed that up. Vosh, would capitalism adopt co-ops if they were so efficient? Capitalism wants to make things more efficient. Then why have they not adopted co-ops? Because that efficiency has to serve the material interests of the people in power. It's not enough that something be efficient after all. In capitalism, our lives are more or less completely controlled by the wealthy and the elite. There have been studies on this. How? Hang on, I can't. No, I can clarify it. So there have been studies shown that the preference for policy voting of the general population and policies that actually get passed in the house, for example, there's essentially no correlation. It's null. There's what the public wants and what happens. There's no relationship between these things. Whereas what the wealthy want, there is a strong correlation to what laws are actually passed, like a very strong statistical correlation. I don't mean that all the wealthy people are sitting in smoky rooms with cigarettes talking about what policy to pass next under the guise of democracy. I just mean they have a lot more power than us and they have lobbyists and they have super PACs. We don't, not most of us. So for that reason, while worker co-ops may be more efficient in some respects, it's not like they blow everything else out of the water. I think they're generally better. Though they may be more efficient in some respects, they're not efficient in a way that benefits the people in power. That extra money doesn't go into the economy. It goes into the pockets usually of the workers there and that goes into the economy sort of secondarily. But that usually goes into forms of, goes into taxes and it goes into sectors of the economy that don't immediately benefit the interests of the wealthy in the same way that it would for it to just be a traditionally run firm where all of the proceeds and all the revenue gets funneled up through the top before being sort of disseminated out. So that's ultimately the issue. It's not just- Okay, hang on a sec. Hang on a sec. Because that's not the same thing. Saying that we are controlled by the wealthy is not they are getting their interests disproportionately served by the state. And it's not like their interests can't be bucked by the state when the Demos wants it, which is what we've seen with Trump and Brexit. So you can't just say everyone is controlled by billionaires. When I say controlled, okay, okay, to clarify, when I say controlled by, I don't literally mean like we're in bondage and there's nothing we can do. I just mean that the systems are rigged in their favor. Okay, if I'm using hyperbolic language, I apologize. Yeah, it's okay. I accept you walking that to the point where you're comfortable making- Yeah, it's just the system is rigged in their favor. It is, it is. Works for them. Yeah, that's ultimately the issue. Yeah, the Joe Biden, Hunter Biden stuff, you know. Right, right. And the Clintons and the Trumps and Epstein suicide with giant predictions. Right, so on and so on. Yeah, yeah. The sort of neoliberal consensus we can call, I think. Gosh, yeah, thanks so much. We appreciate that. Next up, let's see. Rump Lee Depew, thanks for your question, where they said, aren't we all afraid that Rogan is going to lead Bernie down the alt-right pipeline with his endorsement? Of course, I've got a question. I've got a question. Yeah, hit me, yeah. What do you make of the reaction to Bernie saying, thanks, Joe? If you know anything about me, you know I fucking hate anti-pragmatic, woke, scoldy, virtue signalling me. I hate these people. Joe Rogan is such a huge figure and coalition building is politics, baby. If Bernie can make that grasp, anyone, all the people on Twitter right now, complaining, they'd accept an endorsement from Kissinger before they'd accept their endorsement from Joe Rogan. Yeah, they would, they would. I was really disappointed, by the way, in what's his name, Carlos Mazza, the guy who was on the receiving end of Stephen Corbett's harassment. I thought I expected better of him because Vox is really good at work, but yeah, he was... No, they don't. Yeah. But yeah, he was spurging out all over Twitter. It's like, why? I mean, Joe Rogan is not like a right winner. He's not like some ideological Republican. So I can't believe this, but it's the trans issue, isn't it? It's the trans issue. That's the big one, yeah. I think Joe Rogan is probably further to the left than the average American, I would say. He's maybe on trans issues, he's kind of at par or maybe even further to the left, but for most issues, and his sort of vague populist, like hippie attitude, I think it's further to the left than most people. I think that's an endorsement I'd be proud to have when I was burning. I think there's a phrase that everyone's conservative about the thing they know most, and I think that's true. I mean, that's just a true statement. And I think that that's why Bernie... Bernie, that's Joe Rogan, is has quite a, you know, I don't wanna sound unfaithful. It's a very conservative view of transgender women to men competing in sports, at least not without revealing that they are transitioned because of the biological nature and differences of men and women. Honestly, I think that that's the issue that's gonna like tang the SJW, the radical left woke Brigade. They can't, you can't have men beating the crap out of women and then saying, well, we've got a dick on this. So it's fine. But sorry, yeah, okay. We have to agree to disagree. Trans people in sports is a super complicated issue that is often highly oversensationalized by right-leaning figures, but it is undeniably something worth... Broken Skull. What? Broken Skull. Wait, what broken Skull? This is what happens. Yeah, exactly, Google it. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, for one, that's not how data works. For two, athletes break their skulls all the fucking time. That's not how data works. That's a never- No, a single anecdotal evidence. I still don't know who you're referring to. But that's a never event. That's a never event. They should never be a time. This is not how you date it, like, whatever. James, it's a complicated issue. I'm making a moral argument. Let's see. I'm making a moral argument that there is too much of a difference. And it's showing in the results. We can look at what's happened, a woman with a broken skull, that should have never happened. Okay, that's not fair. This is not how you data collect or form or form extrapolations to incredibly complicated social psychological issues. I'm not collecting data. I'm making a moral argument. Can you understand that? Okay, well, I don't like to make broad prescriptive statements on complicated issues based on single-incidences, James. But there are very simple ones that you can. And it's the difference in size. I'm not just jump to the next one. I'm not just jump to the next one. Do it. Pull the trigger. Our father. Pull the trigger, James. Do like me. Our father in the green says, I find it odd that Vash characterizes the woke left activism that he has in the past disagreed with, considers any political ambitions and institutional control that is publicly known is considered a conspiracy by him and others. Wait, what is the apparent hypocrisy of engagement? Yeah, let's see. Say they say, I find it odd that Vash characterizes the woke left activism that he has in the past disagreed with. Okay. And then it says, consider, oh, okay. So they're saying, I find it odd that Vash, given that, they find it odd that you consider any political ambitions and institutional control that is publicly known to be a conspiracy. Okay, I'm not sure if I understand the relationship between these two things, but the reason why I don't like the wokelets on Twitter is because I think they're counterproductive. I think they have their heart in the right place. I would rather have the world filled with idiots who are screaming about trans rights unproductively than I would with a bunch of fascists who disagree with them. But unproductivity is unproductivity. I have to argue against that. I don't know what that has to do with conspiracism. The only people who I say have, usually when I make claims of like broader social control, I try to avoid them being conspiratorial. Everyone agrees that wealthy people have a disproportionate amount of political power in this country. That's literally how capitalism is meant to function. Or at least how it- How all societies function. Doesn't practice. Yeah, yeah, definitely. To different extents, of course. For example, you know, back in the feudal days, very, very, very wealthy merchants were still lesser than lords who had a 10th of their wealth. So obviously things shuffle around, but the powerful people have the power. That's total logical. Whatever the case may be, I try to avoid making statements of conspiracy, though. And I've had to bite my tongue on this in the past, too. Because sometimes it feels like, because sometimes when the economic consensus is talking about rent control, for example, this was a big one for me. I used to be very pro-rent control. And I saw these economic articles from the Barhass and your Heritage Foundation, your Von Meisys, you know, like eugh, eugh. And I don't want to trust that. They're all capitalist ideologues. But eventually I sat there, I took a deep breath and I sat down, I engaged with the data. And no, I can't. The data agrees with them. So I moved my position over. I try to avoid engaging in conspiracism. It can really hamper your ability to engage critically with media. Gotcha. Just to have interest, is that the same reason you find yourself siding with the Koch brothers on open borders? I probably side with the Koch brothers and that rape should be illegal, too. But I don't really use that as the defining. But there's a real salient conversation here about the actual effect of mass immigration and the argument, and you make this argument yourself, is that, well, the economy gets bigger. But you also agree that there is a portion of the economy, a slice of the demography of the country that actually lose money. When you, I mean, I don't care about the overall size. I care about the distribution. When your body is covered in leeches, the best way to deal with that problem is not to avoid eating so they have less blood to drink. It is to swat off the leeches. And that is what I advocate for. Gotcha. Yeah, OK. That is very clear. Thank you. Got another one from our father in the green. Thanks for your question. He said, I'm progressive. I want many progressive policies implemented. But I feel people like Vosch stifle any good progress when he dismisses the very toxic and influential elements in the woke left. Think after Bernie. I argue all the time with the toxic elements of the left. I'd like to think that I'm one of the least toxic elements. I'm pretty data-driven. I try not to engage too much in ideological demagoguery. I don't know. So I accept that there are a bunch of jackasses on Twitter who make the left look good, or sorry, who don't make the left look good. Of course, I can see that point. I just don't think that the existence of crazy SJWs means that all data and academia is being driven by a cabal of man-hating feminist or something. I don't know. I think it's simultaneously possible to leave there are pernicious elements of the left without believing many of the arguments that are ascribed to them by the right. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Let's see. Our father in the green, thanks for your other comment. They said, I still wait for Vosch and King Crocoduck to discuss the deeper philosophy of science slash academia and woke ideology. Yeah, that's my bad. I got to get on that. I even talk with Crocoduck on Twitter. That's my fucking bad. Someone donated so much a while ago for that debate. And I really want to too. I'm just horrible at scheduling. That's my bad. You got it. Joel Sass, thanks for your question. They said for both, if I create a Korean baby in a test tube and raise it in a lab bereft of any human interaction, what would its culture be? Wolf. Yeah, it'd be feral. These are things that have been done. They can't talk. They don't appear to ever be able to talk, because apparently parts of your brain only form in early life. And it's required that you have human interaction for these parts of the brain to develop. And if you don't have it, then they don't develop. And essentially, you become, I don't want to say retarded, but that is actually the word, I think. No, but it is actually the word. Yeah, you can't get it back. You can't get it back. Yeah, if your first few years are forever, it's stunted. And it always will be. And you'll never learn to read. You'll never have proper. This is actually one of the things I'm more interested in than anything else, as an amateur researcher. Because I talk so much about nature versus nurture. If there was some sort of, there's no way to do this ethically. But if we could somehow learn more about feral people, like people who grew up without human interaction, if we could spawn these people, because they're very rare, then we could learn so much. It wouldn't be ethical. I'm just very curious. This is why I think it's unrealistic to suggest that the culture you're born into isn't some kind of heritage because it is. There's actual damage to your body if you aren't inculcated into the patterns of behavior that your parents show with you. And they are expressed in a particular way because of the culture that your parents had. And so I don't think you can say that that's not the case. I mean, I'm not saying these things can't be learned or anything like that, but that you are definitely born with, you inherit this kind of thing. And I think that's a fair way of putting it is inherit from your parents through their behavior with you and the values they teach you. It's the skull of an Englishman taken out of the bones. I'm sorry. Sorry? Sorry to near you. Okay, all right, it was for my benefit then. That's okay. All right, we probably have time for like two more, right? Gotcha. I think, yeah, I think just to be as quick as possible. Joel Sass, we did get that one. Aurora says, was the US civil rights movement an agenda too? Yeah, I think agendas can be a really, agendas and agenda can be a good or a bad agenda. Yeah, totally MLK definitely had an agenda for America. Yeah. Gotcha. It's okay to have an agenda. I mean, literally everyone has one. And if you don't have an agenda, then you're some sort of fucking loser who does nothing. Yeah, no, I agree with that completely. If everyone, there's no like neutral participant. We're all in this for something. Gotcha. We do have, so no, no, there aren't people who don't get involved in, you know, like, you know, whatever, but you, no one is just a blob that sits there and does nothing in any way. Someone's got some agenda about something. No. Gotcha. Sophie M says, here's my source Sargon. Can you beat a sample of 22,000 patients? So I can give you that link, sorry. Yeah, send it across. I mean, it's worth looking into. I might be wrong. Thanks so much of stealth creations. I'm kind of doing these at random and try to move as fast as possible. They said, if we produce Anne Rand times Bernie's, I think times Bernie Sanders fiction, I think they mean like a cross between Anne Rand and Bernie Sanders. Would free market advertising spread it? The farthest should be redistributed. Okay, I'm gonna, I love you. I'm gonna need that one more time. Yeah, I'm, yeah, I'm also, they said for Vash slash Sargon, if we produce Anne Rand Bernie Sanders fiction, would free market advertising spread it? The farthest should be redistributed. I'm going to take a guess and say that the question is whether a synthesis of these ideologies would be good at marketing itself, or do they literally mean fanfic? I'm gonna take a shot in the dark. I think it's a meme. I think it's a meme. I can't, you can't know. You can't know that, Carl. I'm taking a shot in the dark. I'm gonna say yes comma 24 comma by the end of 2023. Hopefully they answered something. And yeah, there we go. Thanks so much. Maybe I got it, you know. Posadas, John, thanks for your comment. They said Sargon, that family court take was actually based. I've always had that take. So it just seems to have been case, you know. Yeah, I've said that many times. Gotcha, let's see. But thank you. I appreciate it. I think that a lot of, I think that a lot of the problem with male suicidality, which is very disproportionately represented, stems from sort of the breaking down or the dissolution of old patriarchal values were kind of at like a juxtaposition, you know? Where like the old system didn't really work that well and it was kind of bad, but it was at least stable kind of. And now we're moving into something new but the transitionary period is fucking awful for a lot of people. I think the problem is the old system actually did work very well and that's why it perpetuated for such a long time. But that's not to say that it was inherently just. And I think there are injustices in it that were naturally teased out when we decided that we were trying to organize the civilization that we have more along the lines of fairness and reason. And this is a consequence of that. And it's a bit different from that, I think. Yeah, okay, yeah, I don't disagree with that. Yeah, I think that's very, it worked in the sense that it was stable and functioning and self-replicated. Yeah, yeah, and productive and it achieved its goal of producing more generations and increasing the population. That was the goal of it. Gotcha, thanks so much. And we have one last one and this is just a clarification because Benjamin Holm, thanks for your original question, which is they just wanted to clarify. So their original question was, and Sargon, you responded to this where they said, if your issue regarding immigration is purely cultural, why did you bring up the point that a percent of people don't identify as white British? Then you had given a response and they tried to clarify. They said, to clarify, I meant that you stressed the point that a percent of people don't identify as white British. I'm half Arab and I was born in England and I don't identify with being white British. Am I not English? Sorry, can you say that again? No problem, it's all right. It's a mouthful. I apologize. Yeah, exactly. It's difficult to follow it because of... You bet, they said, to clarify, I meant that you stressed the point that a percent of people don't identify as white British. I'm half Arab and I was born in England and I don't identify with being white British. So am I not English? It's up to you to tell me whether you're English. Do you agree that the values of England are good? Do you, although the English are good, do you think that England is a decent place? Do you like the customs? Do you like the traditions and the history and the heritage? Like there's nothing preventing you from buying into all of this. Like I'm a mixed race to set myself. But it's up to you to decide that you are committing to the ideals and to the methods as well. And the methods are probably part of the idea. It's up to you to decide that, I can't decide that. Gotcha. I want to know that I'm an American but I fucking hate America. That's my synthesis. Why do you hate America? America is horrible, horrible stuff to its own people and abroad. I hate the superstructure. American people, well, I guess I hate them too, but I love them too, you know. It's that the complicated duality of wanting the world to be better for people who disagree with you, you know? What are you comparing it to though when you say it does horrible things? Oh, I mean, if you want, we could like look at how many regime changes are averaged for a country. I think America would probably lead in that along with like foreign wars and deaths and war and stuff like that. But just in a general, I mean, I'm an anarchist. I don't like states in general. I'm sure if I lived in Italy, I would feel the exact same way about that country or Kazakhstan or whatever. Korea. Okay, yeah, fair enough. Okay. Gotcha, thanks so much, folks. It's been a true pleasure. We do need to wrap up and we say thank you so much for being with us. Thanks so much to the speakers for being here, spending their time. There's a lot of places they could be. So we do appreciate them hanging out with us and their links are in the description as mentioned, folks. So if you heard them for the first time somehow, they are linked in the description so you can hear more at those links below. So once again, thanks so much guys for being here with us. Yeah, of course. Anytime you lied, I don't have anything better to be doing. It took me an hour to eat a loaf of bread before the stream started. That was sort of my accomplishment of the day. And it still might be after this. Thank you so much for the time, James, as always you do wonderful work. Sargon, thank you for coming on. I appreciate the discussion. Yeah, I had a really fun time. It felt a lot more productive than the previous one, which was nice. That's true. Dude, you made the previous one insufferable. I apologize for the absenteeism at the beginning as well. It was family stuff. There was nothing I could do about it, you know. Yeah, of course. So yeah, it was a very good time. Yeah, I apologize. Very good time and very interesting. Send me across that study as well if you can, please. I'm interested in having a look at that. Absolutely. Thank you guys. So with that, take care, folks. We hope you have a great rest of your Saturday. As fun as always. And we'll see you next.