 Everybody, today we are debating race and police. Ladies and gentlemen, we are thrilled to have you here for this epic debate, very special one today. You could say the Super Bowl of modern day debate. And by the way, modern day debate is a nonpartisan channel as we attempt to host debates on science, religion, and politics in the fairest way possible. So hold us accountable folks. And with that, very excited to let you know we have a special one today as we welcome all four of our guests. Want to say thanks Eric Stryker and also regular buddies. Thanks so much for being here gentlemen. Thank you, thanks for having us. Absolutely and Vosh and Destiny, setting things aside and partnering for this unique event. Thank you both Vosh and Destiny for being here today. Yeah. Thanks for having us. Just buddies, happy to be here. Absolutely and with that, wanna let you know folks I have linked all four of the speakers in the description. So if you'd like to hear more you can hear more and also wanna let you know for today it's a fairly flexible format. So we are going to have roughly 12 minutes split by each team and after that we'll have open conversation for 60 minutes followed by about 30 minutes of Q and A. Because we do wanna let these guys get to sleep by a decent time. I am sorry to say that because we probably will have a lot of superchats tonight super chat at your own risk. I'm sorry to say that but we probably almost certainly won't get to all of them and some of them we could say we're gonna be kind of picky with looking for the best questions we can and just to give you that heads up up front. So with that wanna let you know we're very excited as Eric and also or I should say Eric and James will be kicking it off first and they're going to have as I mentioned that split opening and then we're gonna have open conversation closings and Q and A. If you have a question fire it into the old live chat and if you tag me with at moderated bait it makes it easier for me to see it and super chats will push your question at the top of the list for the Q and A. With that, thank you so much. The floor is all yours Eric and James. Yeah, well thanks for that great introduction and thanks for having us again. Race is. So sorry, this is my mistake. I do, this is really special. Forgive me for doing this. I forgot to mention we have a very special video. Someone wanted to wish the debaters luck and so I do wanna show this my mistake. I jumped the gun there. I'm very excited for this one but I do have to show this because it's a face you may recognize. So let me just show this clip for all of our speakers. Thank you and another welcome from a special guest. What's up Hunter Avalon here. The super based or super blue-pilled guy depending on who you ask. Vosh, Destiny, Eric, James. Thanks so much for taking time out of your busy day to have this debate. I think it's gonna be really interesting and I'm looking forward to this great dialogue. So thanks again guys and may the best team win. With that, wanna say thanks so much Hunter for that wish of good luck for all four of the speakers. And with that, we will kick it over as said to Eric and James, thanks for being here. Definitely our favorite YouTuber. But yeah, race is probably the most pertinent discussion we could be having right now. One of the most pertinent discussions with cities on fire, white monuments being toppled, white people being attacked in the streets for defending said monuments and being criminally charged for defending themselves. But what's been made clear in America over the past few weeks, especially, this is something that's been playing out since the country's founding of course. But what's been made especially clear as of late is that diversity is not working. Diversity is a failed experiment. A racial egalitarianism is a failed experiment. And it's not working for whites who are being disenfranchised, we're being subjected to physical violence, overpoliced, pushed out of positions of power, whiteness being effectively criminalized in many ways. The right of whites to self defense effectively being criminalized in many ways. But it's not working for blacks either. And to say that it's working 100% for one group or the other, that is, it's not true. I mean, there are some legitimate grievances and we can quibble with the particulars of these, but blacks that feel that they rightly feel that the system, despite everything, it's giving them in terms of advancement, affirmative action programs, so on and so forth. It isn't for them. It feels alien. They don't like being governed under a system that they correctly identify as being of European origin. So nobody's really getting what they want from this. The only interest being served from diversity is from forcing these incompatible, largely incompatible groups together, the only interest being served is that of global capital, that of the elites. This is making class solidarity impossible. Diversity is being used effectively as a wrecking ball to destroy the last vestiges of normal healthy American society. That is part of the case that we're going to make today. We are going to, of course, talk about crime and race and crime, the causes of crime and all of the above. But that is, I think, the general meta point that people need to take home is that diversity is not working for blacks. It is not working for whites. The only interest being served is that of global capital. And with that, I'll hand it over to Eric Stryker. Okay, great to be here, everyone. Let me start off by expressing disappointment in the fact that instead of having a conversation about race with two blacks, we're having a conversation about it with two white men who have appointed themselves spokesman of the black race. What does the average black man on the street even think of two gay white liberals deciding the fate of their communities for them? According to Varsh, we wanted to debate blacks because black people are dumb and it would be an easy win for us. But I've had incredibly fruitful conversations with various members of the black community from Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney to members of the nation of Islam, the black hoteps. What was remarkable about all these conversations is that I saw almost eye to eye with them on everything. One important view I share with black leaders from Muhammad Ali to Malcolm X to Louis Farrakhan, even Van Jones is the hatred of you disingenuous white liberal scum. As Van Jones said, the white liberal is a bigger enemy to the black race than any Klansman. Muhammad Ali mocked a British TV announcer as a self-hating weirdo in an interview because he said he wanted the races to mix. Malcolm X accurately stated that Jews and liberals are cynics who pretend to be friends of the Negro in order to use them to increase their own power. I can find videos of Malcolm X praising George Lincoln Rockwell. Can you name any black who has ever said anything good about a white liberal? Sure, they'll fleece them for money, but blacks love the treason and hate the white trader. Good for them. The only systematic racism in America is against white people. In today's America, between one in five and one in four blacks, a significant overrepresentation works for the public sector, a place that provides reliable middle-class jobs with healthcare, paid vacations, and other benefits. Public sector workers are unionized at a rate of 35% compared to private sector unions, which are 6%. The typical public sector worker gets 22% higher wages than their private sector equivalents. On the other hand, white people are 77% of minimum wage employees, another massive overrepresentation. These are the shitty jobs with no healthcare, no labor rights, and always dead ends. White overrepresentation among the working people is by design. A study released last year in the Journal of Experimental Psychology by Aaron Cooley found that when people are given white privilege training, they're far less likely to empathize with the white working poor while their sympathies increase for blacks. Is it any wonder why fake socialists who promote white privilege bullshit like Vosh love to make fun of rednecks and hicks for their low status? Is it any wonder why all the bankers and capitalists are promoting white privilege bullshit? This is an ideology for oppressing white workers. It's no surprise that once again, capitalist Goldman Sachs' destiny and communist Vosh are fighting on the same side against the white working people in the West. James and I will proudly take a stand for our folk and for the pride of European civilization. As for the police, I got no love for the blue. I remember Daniel Shaver being executed as he pled for his life. No fucking congressional hearings there. I remember the murdering pig is walking the streets drawing a taxpayer-funded pension. I remember Jeremy Martis, a six-year-old boy shot to death by two fucking black pigs. He's now, one of them is now free. It later came out that one of the black men that shot this little boy targeted his father for assassination because he wanted to fuck his wife. So give me a goddamn break about this systematic racist bullshit. The entire system is anti-white. That's my piece. Okay, destiny, do you mind if I go first? Yeah, I can stuff out. Yeah. All right, well, that was a fantastic piece of performance art. I would like to remind the two people I am debating that the subject we are debating is in fact racism in the criminal justice system. The statement we were asked to provide was this. All else equal, African-American people are treated worse by the criminal justice system for no discernible reasons, not directly or at least indirectly, influenced by racism or race-based policies. And I had wondered coming into this with the totality of evidence on our side, what approach you would take towards rebutting those arguments. And it is clear to me now that theater, as I had anticipated, is indeed the approach you will be taking because you did not say shit about the actual subject of discussion. Instead, it was the same vague, performative conspiratorial nonsense you could read off any pull post. So let me actually bring some data into this conversation. The evidence in favor of the idea that black people are discriminated against in the criminal justice system is overwhelming. It is uniformly reified not only by private academics, but also by government institutions, from the FBI to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, that in every level of our criminal justice system, black people are treated disproportionately poorly. And to that, the common response is this. Well, black people may get shafted in this way and that way. However, they do more crime. So in all actuality, they're being treated fairly. No, these studies account for every conceivable socioeconomic confound that is typically used as a means of obfuscating the truth of the matter. We have evidence that black people are with all other factors apart from race meaningfully accounted for infinitely more likely to be stopped by stop and frisk procedures, more likely to be stopped by police while driving, more likely to be hit with partial sentences, particularly with regards to mandatory minimums, more likely to be sentenced to the death penalty. I mean, I could read out all of the studies I'm looking at right now, but I imagine we'll have time to go through them one by one. That is the subject I am interested in discussing, not some vague conspiratorial bullshit over whether or not people taking down statues of Confederates means this country is anti-white. And to you, Destiny. Yeah, wow, I didn't know we were doing theater interest of this, but I would like to point out that I think it's very funny that on one end we have Alsup, who is saying diversity is not working for the country that is literally the head of the world right now, both economically and militarily. And then another guy who has diluted himself into thinking he's European, I guess. But yeah, I mean, narrowing the focus of this conversation onto the criminal justice system and focusing how blacks are disproportionately impacted by said criminal justice system is the reason why me and Vosha are here today. I hope that we don't spend the majority of this debate pandering to these random, stupid talking points about how blacks are different in some other area that's completely, totally unrelated to this discussion. You got it. And with that, we will go into the open discussion. So thank you, gentlemen, for being here and I'll be just to let you know up front, I'll probably be more active just because I expect this might be a little bit wild, but the floor is all yours. I'm sure, well, I'd like to begin by addressing this idea that there is a multitude of studies showing that blacks are, as Vosha put it, infinitely more likely to be stopped and frisk, which, of course, begs the question, well, why would that be? Is this just the predilections of racist police officers that are stopping and frisking blacks for no reason other than evil white racism? Or is there a factual basis for why some groups may be more likely to commit crimes, thus more appropriate targets for a stop and frisk policy, for example? I'll add something to that too. Under Mayor Bloomberg, whites are twice as likely to be stopped and frisked as a proportional to violent crime they commit. Blacks are wildly overrepresented in all crimes in New York City, and yet whites were twice as likely under Bloomberg. Bloomberg laughed about this on the radio, by the way. And that was specifically done to create an equalist outcome. Right, and so it's one thing to say to compare the percentage of the population to the percentage of those that are stopped and frisked, but you can look at actually those that are arrested and convicted of murder and the rate of stopping and frisk for people such as that, for blacks in that case, the rate of blacks arrested for murder versus the rate at which they are stopped and frisked, and it is disproportionately against whites. Whites are disproportionately stopped relative to the percent of violent crimes they commit. I'd like to begin, if we're going to talk about studies, we can talk about a study from Washington State. I'm pretty sure we don't have too many points. We don't. When we do these one at a time, I'd like to, I know that the goal is to put out as much stupid as possible. The first thing that you brought up, the idea that like, so a common tactic is to say like weasel words, like well blacks commit way more crime than whites and then whites don't commit as much crimes instead of actually like looking at the actual figures. So for instance, if we were to say that like there is a good reason for black people to be pulled over more than white people, then you would expect to see that those pullovers are actually like accomplishing the goal of like finding more crime. This just doesn't seem to be the case though. So for instance, an analysis of four and a half million traffic stops in North Carolina shows that black and Latino drivers are more likely to be searched than whites, okay, given the population. However, despite that, there are still more profitable searches turning up white motorists having contraband. And then this study has been repeated in Nashville as well where even if you look at the amount of stops, even if you look at the fact that, well they commit more crime, whatever the fuck that means, when you actually analyze like, well how likely are they to turn up contraband or to catch somebody for a crime, they actually aren't being able to justify these stops with these numbers. It's one of the reasons why Stop and Frisk has been phased out so largely in North Carolina. It's just not good policing. Even if we throw all the social justice, whatever aside and all the feel good or whatever, if we just look at the raw data, Stop and Frisk is just not a good way to catch crime. And then this idea that you can say, well maybe there's a reason, maybe it's because they think they're more likely to commit blah, blah, blah, what you're doing is you're justifying racism. You're basically saying, well maybe- I got the 2019 studies here for the crime rate. Okay, I think- When I'm talking about the crime rate, there's nothing to do with what we're talking about. 93%, 93% of all drivers in New York City were committed by blacks. One second, one second, one second, one second. You're getting excited, Stryker, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. 86% of rapes were committed by blacks Okay, forgive me for doing this. I hate doing this so early. I've got y'all on mute. Forgive me for doing this so early. But just to, we come back to you, I promise, Stryker, but just because there were a lot of points that I know Destiny wants to get a chance to address as many as possible, promise we'll come back to you but want to kick it back to Destiny. Yeah, okay, he'll use his European data to catch back up, I'm sure, or his European DNA. So the thing that I'm trying to focus on is that the idea that even if black people do commit more crime, that doesn't justify the increased number of stops. We can hide behind this idea that black people commit more crime all day. Neither me nor Vash are gonna dispute that. That's obviously true, but that's not a slam dunk. The point is whether or not the total amount of extra stops that black people receive compared to white people can be justified based on the extra amount of crime they do. And that's just not borne out anywhere. Again, we can always talk about the high crime that blacks commit or whatever, but it just doesn't explain the massive disproportionate amount of stops that black people receive compared to white people and they don't have the numbers to justify it. Yeah, I'd like to add to that. It's very often the prerogative of these types of things that black people commit to, just no matter what evidence you present to them, they lean back in their chair, put their finger to their chin, say, well, 1350. We understand that there is a disproportionate rate of criminality between the races here in this country. What we are arguing is that the judicial response, the criminal justice system's response to this imbalance is disproportionate to the extent of constituting racial bias. If the bias is not explained by the crime statistics, it's unjustified and therefore, by definition, racial biases of the system, hence systemic racial bias. We can kick it. I think Eric, you had a point you wanted to get to. Yeah, well, if 96% of shootings in New York City are committed by blacks and poor weekends and Dominicans, it actually makes absolute sense to check more of those people for guns. I mean, it's just common sense. Furthermore, you don't interact at all with the fact that whites who, again, are marginal in the terms of representation in crime in New York City are twice as likely, because in comparison to their crime rate, two times as likely, Bloomberg said this, he admitted this when he was mayor, to be stop and frisk just so that they can even out the numbers. So if there's any institutional racism there, it's against whites. And you could even argue that the problem with stop and frisk was that it wasn't stopping enough black people and enough Hispanics and Dominicans, et cetera, because if you're looking to catch people with illegal guns in New York City and you have 96% of shootings being committed by blacks and Dominicans and others, then it bears to reason, then, that an appropriate response from the criminal justice system would be to 96% of people selected for random stops would be those that are doing the shooting. But moreover, we can understand why blacks might feel uncomfortable with that. Why? These are uncomfortable realities for African-Americans to experience that they are more likely to perhaps encounter, have police encounters because they're committing more crime. They're more likely to be sentenced more harshly because they're more likely to have prior convictions. Right? So all of these things lead to them feeling uncomfortable. That said, this is a system, a criminal justice system that was created by people of European descent, by white Americans to police white Americans. I just found their North Carolina study just real quick. I found their North Carolina study and it did say that the contraband difference was 32% on whites, 29% for blacks. What that study didn't include, of course, typical dishonesty, is that the blacks had warrants and the searches, they were mandatory. Right, and that's the other thing, is when you talk about these studies, if you know about how these work, what will happen is, there's a lot of points. So just to let you know, give you a heads up. Can I just address the stops? Just one piece of fact about that, and it's not a new point, but when a police officer engages in a stop, they will run the license plate. And what happens then is dispatch will tell them who the driver is, who the registered owner is, and whether or not they have warrants. In many cases, this then necessitates an arrest if there's an outstanding warrant. And we know that, what is the number? Like one in five black men will spend time in prison in this country. Blacks tend to have more warrants than whites do. So thus, you would expect to see a higher rate of stop and a higher rate of search. Maybe not as much contraband, but even then, 3% difference within the margin of error. Let's kick it back over. Let's kick it back over just because there's a lot of points just for everybody to keep up. Yeah, a lot, and very few of them are relevant. So first of all, I took a look at the 2019 New York City shootings by race statistics that you just cited. And it seems like from what I'm looking at, the arrest rates correspond proportionally almost exactly to the rate of victim and suspect. Meaning that at least in the case of shootings in this city during this year, there seems to be a relatively proportional rate of arrest to crimes committed. I don't know how exactly this is evidence of some sort of anti-white bias. In fact, I don't know how this is relevant at all to what we were talking about. But yeah, additionally, with regards to the pullover study that you just looked at, you accused us of dishonesty for not mentioning the fact that warrants were a part. Of course, warrants are a part of decision-making with regards to searching vehicles that are pulled over. But the fact that there are more warrants proportionally on black people is in support of our argument because less black people proportionally had contraband in their cars. Meaning that even with the distortion that you allege by the way, I don't know if you're aware of the extent to which that actually influenced the available data, there was still a disproportionate rate of searches to contraband found. Right, Destiny, was there anything in particular you wanted to know? Yeah, I guess one of the really disappointing things about these conversations, and I already see where it's going to go, is that typically, if you don't have an actual data set to back up your argument, we start reaching to random data. So for instance, for the specific question, and it's funny, because you're even centering on New York City, this is your slam dunk argument. So what I would expect to see from you guys, if stop and frisk was effective, is some sort of data showing that, oh, well, once police implemented stop and frisk, either number of violent homicides by firearm decreased, or once they implemented stop and frisk, they were able to procure far more firearms than were before. There's a reason why you guys don't have that data, it's because you know this is a bullshit argument. You can vaguely mention the crime rates of black people in New York City, but that's not really supporting any argument whatsoever. If you want to defend stop and frisk, I mean, I would love to see some data that points to stop and frisk being a good program. Initially I was more sympathetic towards it, because yeah, black people commit more crime, maybe it makes more sense to pull them over in some areas. But one of the big reasons why stop and frisk just kind of fell out of here is because it just didn't work that well. It just didn't really turn up that many more firearms in New York City. All right. One very important point I need to make about the warrants and people being pulled over, is when someone is pulled over and they have a warrant, this will necessitate an arrest. In almost every case this will necessitate an arrest, which then necessitates a search. So let's say we have two examples, right? We have a black person being pulled over as a warrant and a white person being pulled over whose car smells of marijuana. Now, the white person who's being pulled over whose car smells of marijuana, this will be a reason for a search. A police officer will search their vehicle and then contraband will turn up. Now, every black person with a warrant is not driving around with contraband. So the idea that they're being arrested for the contraband, this is a misrepresentation of the data. Now, again, it actually is shocking that 29% of searches of black drivers turned up contraband because many of these were not predicated. The probable cause for the search was not identifiable smell of drugs or visible drug paraphernalia. These are all probable causes. These were warrant searches. Wait, do you have any data on how many of those searches were initiated by warrants? Do you? Wait, no, I don't, but I'm not making the claim. No, but we do have the data available that there are more outstanding warrants or there's a disproportionate amount of outstanding warrants for African-Americans. I'm sorry, regarding this data set, did you just imagine a correlative factor that you imagined disproves the data or do you actually have any evidence? Are you really going to say that there's not a disproportionate amount of blasphemy? Let me check Destiny over here because Destiny just straight up lied, lied about stop and frisk. Like this is what he does. Yeah, what did I straight up lie about? He confidently lies. So we got the data here from New York City, the homicide rate before stop and frisk. Homicide rate was 31 per 100,000 in 1991 after Giuliani implemented broken windows policing and stop and frisk. I mean, this is something that everyone knows that New York used to be more dangerous. I love the fact that you're fighting the highest crime rate in US history in 91. We'll come right back to Destiny. Mute him, mute him, because he always does this when he's losing. Hey, don't be so mad on me. We'll come right back to Destiny and watch. Here's the 1991, 31 homicides per 100,000. 2013, that was Bloomberg's last year's mayor with stop and frisk, 3.3 per 100,000 homicides. Okay, that's a massive drop. Okay, from fucking 31 homicides per 100,000 to 3.3 per 100,000. That's before and after stop and frisk. So that's, you just lie. Do you have evidence that's because of broken windows policing policy or does that correlate to a general downward trend of violent crime across the country? Well, yeah, even across the world. Like the nineties were the most violent point in all of US history. Like I could literally point to any spurious correlation that I want and say, well, the reason actually was because I was born in 88 and I was like the savior of the US and everybody looked to me and stopped committing violent crime. You know, you can see three years after my birth that happened. You notice how the older I get, the less violent crime there was in America? I don't know. Is that another correlation that we should be concerned about? We can be silly or we can look at the nationwide rate of decreasing crime. And I think the nationwide decreasing crime, and correct me if I'm wrong, but this was around 30% or a 30 to 40% drop in violent crime nationwide, which is superseded by that 90% drop that Striker just pointed out. So yeah, we do have evidence here. If you're looking at an outlier, 1991, New York City was literally like, have you seen a scape from New York, like, sneakless? Well, that's what Destiny questioned me on. That's what Destiny gave me. Well, actually, I think- No, he was talking about evidence from both of those things in general. Did the homicide rate in New York City drop? The answer is yes. Not reached. That's adjusted to stop and frisk. Wait, have you done research for any conversation ever? Now, nationwide falls in crime is frankly the criminal justice bill that's always talked to me. You know, Trump is always attacking Biden for supporting the criminal justice bill where Hillary Clinton and the Democrats called, Hillary Clinton called blacks predators and so on. They basically just put all these black people in prison. That's why the crime rate went down. Are we pivoting a little bit? You want to let them out, okay? That's another reason why the crime rate nationwide went down, okay? They just put all the black people in prison. Slight pivot. Yeah, there you go, anyway. Yeah, so as we were saying, New York City in 1991 was about as much of an outlier as you can possibly get when it comes to the murder rate in this country. So to take that one specific country and then all of the dozens and dozens of policies that it's implemented over the past few decades to mitigate that crime rate and go like, well, broken windows policing. In spite of the fact that there was a gigantic nationwide drop in violent crime and broken windows policing has been implemented in other countries, I'm not country, sorry, in other cities and has not been found to have those same positive effects, really doesn't speak to the strength of your argument right there. I would argue that New York City was in a uniquely bad place and it fixed itself in a number of ways. Some of those ways were more effective than others. And none of those ways, just because you're saying so involved, stop and frisk or broken windows policing, all right. None of it had anything to do with the falling crime in New York City had nothing to do with the police or a change of police tactics. That's what they're saying. And we can demonstrate that, demonstrate that. We can, if I can finish this, we can, we can demonstrate and look to the nationwide decrease in violent crime compared to New York's decrease in violent crime. What was happening nationwide? There was no nationwide stop and frisk. What was New York doing? They were taking violent crime very seriously. They were profiling accurately, relatively accurately, those that were likely to commit the violent crime. And so the crime rate went down. The homicide rate went down. I don't know. And you're saying that New York fixed itself. I mean, come on. You want to demand evidence for, you maybe have evidence for stop and frisk having any effect. Well, this is one of the most preeminent policies pursued in New York. And it led to a decrease in violent crime that beat the national average. So that seems to be compelling evidence right there. If it was, then you should have a study for it. Like that's so easy. Like if you're going to say that like, oh, well stop and frisk definitely led to a decrease in violent crime. Why are you comparing? No, no, no. Stats for you in the chat. I mean, so we're past freshman level of high school in terms of argument. You can just throw a stat out, right? Like generally when people do studies, they will do a comprehensive analysis of all the tactics implemented by a certain department. They might go county by county. They might have control cities that they'll compare New York City to to look at a variety of different policies to see how the impact of the crime. Not just like, well, here's one stat and it went down dummy. I'm right. Like, come on. Like this is the easiest part of the conversation. Literally correlation, causation, conflation right here. But I found a study. It'll help you out a little bit. So here's a study on factors which can be attributed to the decrease in crime over the 1990s. And there's a segment for factors which do not seem to decrease to the criminal rate in this country entitled better policing strategies. It ends with, thus, while the impact of policing strategies on crime is an issue in which reasonable people might disagree on given the lack of hard evidence, my reading of the limited data that are available leads me to the conclusion that the impact of policing strategies on New York City are exaggerated and that the impact on national crime is likely to be minor. So this is a meta-analyses of existing studies that are done to decrease in crime over the 1990s. I can link it in chat. Yeah, I really enjoy this bit of like, you know, freshman level going on JSTOR and like finding type in studies. Better than having no data also. We don't have the data. No. The crime rate went down. I mean, the idea that the idea that, yeah, the crime went down. We have a multitude of statistics which we've presented and then to say, oh, well, no, no, because, you know, that's not on JSTOR. So well, actually. Also, you have stats, not analysis. Well, hold on a second. Let me get back to you. Let me get in on here. Listen, the murder rates in places like Baltimore and St. Louis and places that don't have New York City-style stop and frisk, the murder rates there are atrocious. Chicago, the South Side of Chicago, places like that. So there's a massive gulf. Are you going to literally deny that New York City is the most safe, one of the most safe big cities in America if not the safest? This is common knowledge. It's Sunday after Saturday-style common knowledge. And if we have to sit here and debate that, then it's just ridiculous. The crime, the homicide rate went down drastically after stop and frisk. But let's pretend for a second. Let's pretend for a second. Because what I was really, the reason I wanted to talk to black people instead of two disingenuous white liberals. Can we get to the relevant points? Yeah, we can. Can we not do this? I don't want to. No, no, I'm going to fucking do it. The reason why is that I want to talk solutions. It's calming for him. Because I'm willing to accept that black people may perceive that a white cop, or a white judge, or a white jury may discriminate against them. And you know what? There might be cases like that. I'm not saying there's not. The point is, what I'm saying is what is the solution to that? Now, my solution- Are you conceding the argument? Excuse me? No, what are you saying? There is criminal justice bias. There may be a perception of this in the opening. There may be a perception among blacks. There may be a perception among blacks. They're being treated unfairly because they look at a white judge and they look at a white prosecutor and say, well, one plus one equals two. I'm going to jail. Not because I smothered that toddler, like Rhys Bowman was eight months old who was smothered by a black hair-taker. You make fun of that line of thought. Wait, you make fun of that line of thought, but that's all I'm trying to say. What you're doing. Let's get back to the main point. Yeah, can I finish? Just finish the sentence. Yeah, about black people. Right, is that they may have a perception they're being treated unfairly, but that's not the case. So the problem that presents itself to us is how do we address this nationwide problem where 15% of the population or so feels like they can never get a fair shake in the system? Can we even build a system where everyone is governed by the same laws and criminal justice system? What Striker and I will argue is that no, is that diversity and integration is not working because you will always have these perceptions of unfairness as wrong as they may be, statistically wrong as they may be. So what do we do with that? Well, the first thing we have to do is we have, real quick, I'm sorry, just real quick. The first thing we have to do is we have to figure out the first step to solving any problem that you learn at any stage in your life is to identify the problem. So if they have a perception that they're being untreated or that they're being treated unfairly, but they're not actually being treated unfairly, well, then the solution is going to be a hell of a different than they, if they are actually being treated unfairly. So I don't know why we're trying to skip over that part of determining descriptively whether they are or not being treated unfairly. I think that's really important before we move on to some weird conversation about black people not being able to live alongside white people or something. I think it's good to identify whether or not they are being treated unfairly first. So just carry it. So if we're just going to do the stats game or whatever, because we don't actually know the difference between citing one or two numbers versus an actual study done by educated people in the field, I've linked something in the Zoom group chat. So you can see that the biggest fall, your decline in murder rate, right? After 2009, is actually coinciding with a huge fall in stop and frisk. And that the massive rise in stop and frisk in the early 2000s didn't really seem like it was correlated with the decrease in violent crime. Can you explain here if stop and frisk is supposed to be lowering violent crime, why these numbers would be like anti-correlated like this? Yes. I'd like to add to that really quickly if I may. And it would be very much appreciated if you would actually stick to the point and not go to this weird oncillary conspiracy bullshit about white civilization. I don't know why you're making fun of your perceived belief of how black people perceive the criminal justice system. You're making fun of them for what you consider to be an intuitive judgment when all you've been giving us is intuitive judgment. Well, look at Baltimore. Thank you for clarifying the black point of view. Look at these cities. There's crime there. There's black people. What more do you need to know? It's common sense. It's not surprising to me that you bulk when provided actual studies from actual people who actually have the education to analyze data. I can explain the drop in crime rate in New York City. I can explain that. Can I explain it? Explain the data that was just provided to you by destiny. I'm gonna explain the data real quick. Black people are leaving New York City because they're getting priced out. The black population in the last decade has dropped by 23%. Do you, does that make sense to you? They're just leaving. They're moving to other states. So I like how we've moved completely from stop and frisk to, well, now it's because they're leaving. This is why studies are important. Instead of just looking at like one or two numbers. Because now we say, well, actually didn't drop. It didn't drop as the same percentage. You're gonna throw up another one. Well, actually, that was when BETV stopped showing like as much violent program. Well, actually that was because of blah, blah, blah. Have you been to Harlem lately? This is why we need people now. Why did you just lie, Striker? In 1990, the black population in New York City was 98.7%. In 2010, it's 25.5%. That's a 3 percentage point drop. You're saying that's going to account for the massive. Let's give a demographic study from a black website. I don't care. I don't care where you don't care about it. OK, here it is. No, I just care about how accurate the data is that you're suggesting blacks don't have the authority to speak in these topics. I think the person with the best idea should have the authority. Hey, listen, hey, listen. As a white guy who appreciates the importance of empiricism, I would not want either of you motherfuckers speaking for me in any regard. So no, I do not think that race is actually determining characteristic for whether or not data is correct. Yeah, and also, let's be real. If you claim to speak on behalf of Europeans, I mean, we might as well speak on behalf of white people. Yeah, absolutely right, dude. My brother Destiny will kick it over to James and Eric now. And White's in the new world. We'll give a minute or two just to be sure. Hold on, just to be sure there's order. We'll kick it over to Eric and James to give responses now. Yes, Striker, if you want to finish what you're saying. What I was saying is that the black population in New York City from 2010 to now went from 28% in 2010 to 22%. And it keeps on dropping, OK? Wait, from what year to what year? I actually missed that. I'm not. It's in the chat. You can look at it. OK, I'll look at it. So black people are just leaving the city because they're getting priced out. You know who's priced in the mountains? People like you and Destiny who are gentrifying all these neighborhoods that Harlem is full of whites now. Harlem is full of white people. He's right there. I have four homes in Harlem right now that I exclusively lease out to my families. I think it is denying that it's important. If we're going to talk about the amount of black crime in the city, the amount of black people isn't relevant, is that the suggestion here? Because I think it's actually very relevant. The problem is that you guys haven't found an actual analysis. You're just throwing at random numbers. First of all, I like how you start citing crime from 91, ignoring the fact that Stop and Frist didn't start until like fucking 2002, OK? So firstly, that's funny, OK? You go back to the most violent point in history, and then you try to draw a line between then and now in times when Stop and Frist wasn't even implemented. And then instead of actually having an actual analysis by an actual educated person, taking into account a lot of variables, you're just trying to throw two or three stats here. We've got monocausal things going on here. It's just so stupid. Likewise, they're trying to use a population drop in black people in New York City from 2010 to present day as though that explains a crime change that took place from the 1991s. Yeah, do you realize you could have done some research beforehand and maybe found a couple of data points? Listen, will you listen? Well, listen, it's Pierce Stark, very little said. You guys are actively and maliciously misinterpreting what I said. Stop and Frist, which is a part of broken windows policing. It's associated with it. Would you admit that? You will. So broken windows policing began under Bratton and Giuliani from 1990 to 1992. I'm sorry, from 1994 to 1996, Bratton was the New York City Police Department commissioner. So the point is that Bratton, Giuliani, and Kelling were the ones that came up with the theory and implemented it in the early to mid-90s. And that just so happens, the crime rate went down drastically. I'm not talking about crimes like pissing in the street and things like that, they did police that. But also crimes like the reason the philosophy behind it is that people that are, and I'm not saying I necessarily agree with all of this, by the way. But the philosophy of broken windows policing is that if you allow fair evasion or people get drunk in public and things like that, those people are more likely to commit more violent crimes. So they locked them up ahead of time. Now you could say that's wrong, that's right, whatever. It dropped the crime rate. It's just logic, the types of people that do that. What year was this implemented? This is in the early to mid-90s. Look up Giuliani, Mayor Giuliani. I'm sure you know who that is. And Commissioner Bratton and Kellen. These were the guys that created broken windows policing and stop and frisk that was implemented at the same time. Broken windows policing is not a policy. That's like an overall theory on how to deal with crime. I don't even know if you know what it is. Right, again, this is splitting hairs. And it's not splitting hairs. That's like saying, what was your favorite policy of like? George Bush. Thank you, thank you. You say like the war on terrorism or the war. That's not a policy. That's like an overall ideology for how to approach stuff. Yes, it is a guiding theory on policing that is true. And it is a theory that informed the policies they implemented as mayor. Don't even bother explaining it. I mean, this is the reality. By the way, they have no arguments. By the way, 1990, New York City black population, 29%, 2010, 25 and a half. So we see, yeah, an approximate, what is that, 12% drop in the black population in those years. And from when to when, what was it? 90 to 2010. 90 to 2010. And what was the decrease? 30 homicides to three. And that little itty bitty 12% drop in the black population. Combine that with broken windows, police can stop at risk. Oh my God, you know what would be a great way to combine that with? It would be done in a study. That would be great. Well, let's study the homicide rates of cities. To try to correlate all these things. The term for this is spurlet of correlations. And which when you get a grab bag of data points to sound convincing and you start piecing together, you put them up in your cork board, you've got your twine and your push pins and you try to make a story out of it. So are black people more or less likely to commit murder? Wait, wait, wait. What does that have to do with anything? Remember earlier when I said that all you types do is- That's very pertinent to the fact that the crime rate went down when more black people were police or- Remember how I said earlier that when you guys are confronted with data more complicated than you're capable of understanding, you lean back and say- Oh, here we go, here we go. 1350. Hey, wait, really quickly. Wait, wait, I wanna actually get this back on track really quickly if I may, I hope nobody minds. Because we've been, I guess, arguing over your inability to understand data for a little while now. We got to maybe three of 40 studies. Hold up, whoa, whoa, whoa. I agree, we are, I agree. So how about we get to the other dozens of studies I have that uniformly inform the idea? This is why it's a waste of time to debate white liberals. They're just cynics. Oh, you're backing off? That easy? Well, I mean, this is an important point, though. The idea that data only becomes valid when packaged by someone at a university in a certain way that agrees with you. No, it's classic anti-intellectualism. No, it's not anti-intellectualism. Yeah, but the funny thing is that like any educated person listening to this, like the fact that you just said as an insult with standard practice, data isn't worth anything as a single stat. Of course, these are always contextualized. The fact that you thought that was some kind of, you know, you're creating context. Maybe it's a random data point. You're creating context. No, I'm sorry. Hold on one second. Just, we're going to, just forgive me. I've got everybody on mute. Just want to, what we'll do is change things up a bit with maybe two minutes from each side kind of alternating back and forth just to be sure that we keep, it's been going really well so far. And so it's a, at the same time bubbly. So where were we last? Who would be willing to defer to the other? I'd like to move the conversation in a more productive direction if I may. I would, but I would also like to talk about that it's just for like one minute through because it's just very important. We can split one minute between us. You want to go first? Sure, that sounds great. Okay, let's do it. You go first, all right. Yeah, okay. So like you, creating context for a given stat isn't just comparing one number to another. That's not creating context. Anybody that's ever read a single econ study, a single sociology study, any study like this will know that when you actually try to measure the effectiveness of a given policy, there's a lot of things that go into that work. So for instance, you might see other cities that are comparable in population demographics or socioeconomic status had similar or different policies. You might compare the effectiveness of the policy given different types of populations. You might do it over like a time scale. There's a lot of different things that you have to keep in mind when you're comparing policies between states or between like even a city and then prior in that city when you didn't have it. The idea that you think that you can just throw up one stat when I could point to like any number of other stats. For instance, like the number of prison inmates rose. The size of the police force grew. Unemployment rate dramatically fell between 1990, 1999, 25%. Like all of these things can be correlated with like decreases in burglary. You're making our point. We're at about 35, 35 seconds. Yeah, and I'll finish from my side if I may. So yeah, we can run this back a little bit. So a report on jury selection show that between 1990 and 2010, state prosecutors were about twice as likely to strike black people eligible for juries in criminal cases as opposed to 26% of white people. It was double even after taking account of other correlative factors. The authors of this study testified in court saying the odds of this taking place with no implicit bias with regards to race were about one in 10 trillion. We have studies on implicit bias with regards to mock jurors. We have them in plea bargaining. We have them in charge sentencing. We have them in death penalty sentencing. The amount of data on this for you to get knocked down the weeds of like, well, what year was broken windows policing? The policy of broken windows policing implemented. No, we didn't bring up New York. I'm gonna ask you dead. We can be able to rewind. We'll do it. We'll rewind. You guys started with New York City. We'll switch it. We'll switch it. So why were those black jurors struck? Well, yeah, I like to put that. I was about a minute 25. See why? Hold on a second. Find a study. All right. Well, that was a minute 25 from Destiny Bosch. We'll give the same to Eric and James. Yeah, Striker, just real quick. The reason why jurors will be struck as part of the Voidia process is prior convictions, right? And so if you have prior convictions- Accounted for. If you have prior convictions, then you will be struck. Hold on. Hold on. Not you, Bosch. Oh, okay. Clearing it up so he knows where to go for you. Yeah, and also, I mean, this analysis is only focusing on white jurors. I would like to see a similar study as you apparently have a wealth of them on black jurors. And whether or not black jurors have biases towards whites. And this gets to the bigger point here, is that there may be, you may be able to find some whites or some blacks that have implicit biases towards each other. This is not borne out in the way that the system treats people, for sure. But, I mean, the point being, the idea that blacks cannot be biased against whites, I would disagree with that. Wait, I never mentioned the race of the people who struck the jurors. Still got about 30 seconds. Let the European go. Yeah, well, here's the thing. Here's the thing. The concept of a Bronx jury is very well-known. It's an implicitly and explicitly biased black jury, not to mention the fact that jurors like James said are often struck because they have criminal records or they have some other issue going on. So, I mean, all these questions always beg the question. Why? Why are blacks treated slightly differently than whites? Why are they more likely to get struck in a jury? Why are they more likely to be stopped and arrested? And the question, and the answer where we disagree, we both agree on the fact that blacks are more likely to commit murder. I mean, I'm sure you guys already agreed to that. So the question is then- About time. Yeah. So the question- And time. I'd love to respond. So again, that was accounted for. I never mentioned the race of the people striking the eligible jurors. And additionally, I love the fact that whenever presented with data, you're unfamiliar with. You don't know anything about this study. You don't know any of its control variables, when it was conducted, how it was conducted, the selection size, the sample rate, the P hat. You don't know anything about it. But you're like, well, something has to account for that bias. It can't be racism. Maybe there were prior, oh, wait, we accounted for priors. Maybe they smelled worse. You would go to anything. And this is the reason why we get to point to studies and you get to point to out of context data. We get cross-referenced. Because it is very easy- Cross-referencing. Are blacks more likely to be felons? The answer is yes. Let's give another 15 seconds. Wait, wait, wait. I think that's really important. That has literally nothing to do with the study that I've cited on one side. No, that's accounted for. That's called racism. Or what, if you're trying to say that like a jury is more likely to be biased against a black person because- Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I misinterpreted that. Racism. If you're saying, well, those black jurors were more likely to have been criminals, that's accounted for. If you're saying, well, they were more likely to have been struck because the person doing the striking believes they're criminals, that's literally racism you're defending. We agree with each other then. That's fine. Yeah, you're just pro-racism or anti-racism. We're not arguing over whether it exists, just whether or not it's good. About a minute 20. So we'll kick it over to James and Eric for a minute 20. Yeah, I mean, the idea, though, that this jury selection in and of itself is, can it be looked at to explain the disproportionate sentencing? It's forward. I've got data on that too. One sec. Data. Sorry. No, the idea that the jury selection in this very specific case, where was the study conducted, by the way? Let's find out Michigan State University College of Law. Let's find the popular. You can keep talking while I find the population. Yeah, sure. So the idea that this is an explainer of racism in the criminal justice system, I mean, this study actually is an outlier when you look at other studies that... What other studies? That exam... Well, I was about to mention with Destiny, if you'd let me finish, that, for example, study from Washington State University finds that police officers, by the way, these are the police officers that are killing unarmed black men, supposedly, that police officers actually hesitate longer before shooting black suspects than whites. What does that have to do with the jury? Death penalty, if you... Well, I mean, you pay all your debts. I've got to give them 20 more seconds. Yeah, no, one last thing. One last thing is that Destiny already admitted that the crime rate went down because there's more cops and more people in prison. Okay, that's basically what we all agree on. The question is, why are they mostly black? The ones in prison. I had nothing to do with the database. Well, that's what Destiny said. No, we were arguing whether stop and frisk was the... More cops, more prisoners, plus stop and frisk in the New York context. Chicago has seven times the murder rate in New York City. Philadelphia has six times the murder rate in New York. Again, do we know... They don't have stop and frisk. We can only make correlations there. We notice the pattern every time. No actual way of comparing these data points, just throwing out out of context data points. It's actually embarrassing. I'm cringing over here. Do you want to respond to the actual data point that I cited with regards? Again, you can find it. The study writers testified under oath, the likelihood of that taking place. Those disproportionate odds being about one in 10 trillion unless racism was involved. They testified that in the court of law, of course, perjury is a crime. If you'd like to look over that and attest to that specifically, that'd be fantastic. I don't know what policing has to do with jury selection, but... I'm just quoting Destiny. Destiny said the crime rate went down because there's more police and more people in prison. That's what he said. So I'll agree with him two thirds of the way there. I think in the New York City context, the reason it's the safest big city in America or wasn't told very recently until you anarchists turned it into a jungle. Do you want me to go to an easier study? You anarchist writers, yeah, anarchist writers. Until very recently, it was the safest city in America by per capita. Go to an easier study for you? You compare it to places like Chicago. You compare it to places like Philadelphia. You compare it to places, other big cities. And they have no stop and frisk. And the crime rate is exponent murder rate. What? You think New York City is comparable to all those other cities? On racism. New York City is one of the most unique cities in the United States of America, right? Picking out things, particularly to New York, if we've seen anything with the whole coronavirus stuff, we can see that New York City is a pretty unique place in terms of like, I'm not moving any global. You haven't met the incredibly low bar that we've already set. Hey, bug man, I live in New York City. I can make those porn and group up there. What are you talking about? Whoa, there, big boy. We got another minute. We got another minute. We got another minute. We got another minute. We got another minute. We got another minute. We got another minute. We got another minute left. Why? Like, I don't know what to say. Like, when you're throwing out, like, I lived there. Like, I went down on the streets every day and I collected unbiased part. Yeah, honestly. On the crime rates and I looked at the... There's not even anything to respond to. Yeah, I don't know what to say. This is like cheating because if they say a bunch of dumb shit for two minutes, James, and I have nothing to respond to, what am I supposed to do with my time? Yeah, I was ready for this strategy. I could throw out a new study if we want. So in this study... Well, let's address my study first, actually. Let's address the study from Washington State University. I believe it was 2013 that found that police officers, you can talk about jury selection. Oh, yeah. That study is right. Yeah, we can give you that one. We can give you that one and it doesn't impact anything else we're saying. I have never made the claim. I have never made the claim this is a white-on-black thing. Only systemic bias against black people committed by white or black cops, white or black judges. Doesn't matter. And it might be that the police hesitate more before shooting a black person than a white person? That has nothing to do with the broader argument, though. Like, that's great to you. Well, I'm sure it does. I read it. It would, though. Doesn't it? There is a nascent racism that pervades the criminal justice system. And if that were to be true, you'd expect that to be present in the frontline enforcers of that criminal justice system. Can I take a second to explain systemic bias to also? Allow me to finish my point here. And the study from Washington State University found that police officers are the most likely to hesitate 1.61 seconds before shooting a black suspect compared to 1.37 seconds for a white suspect. And that might seem like a small amount of time, but in a critical life or death situation, that is very important. And so, again, this idea that if there were to be, if the police officers, which again are the frontline enforcers of the criminal justice system, you claim to be racist. If they were to be racist against blacks, for example, then they would be less hesitant to shoot them, right? But they actually hesitate longer for blacks than they do with whites. Okay. So, again, we never made any counterclaim on that one. It makes sense that given all of the racial antagonism surrounding the police brutality that they commit against black people, that they might be more hesitant in some instances to open fire on black people. We never made any claim counter to that, and it has nothing to do with our broader claim. Do you think it's a little bit funny that I'm like, here is a bunch of like meta-analyses on broader racial injustice, and you say, well, here's one study, it takes the cop 1.2 seconds longer to kill the black man. That's exactly what you're doing, Vash. And by the way, would that not be an example of an anti-white bias? If you guys want to present the argument that there is a, there's an anti-black bias. Now, just demonstrate it in the entire criminal justice system. Is evidence of an anti-white bias? We're talking about the totality of the criminal justice system, and we're talking about a disproportionate thing that black people face at every single level of law enforcement, not just whether or not white cops are more likely to pause when they're shooting white black people. What's that for police engagements, apparently? Well, no, we are talking about police engagements. Hold on. Do you think that the only type of police engagement is what's black lives matter about? If it's not about shooting, I don't know, I'm a black man. We're not talking about black lives. We're talking about racial bias. Hold on. Oh my God. Hold on. I'm sorry. Go on. Striker, call me there. I'm sorry. Go ahead. If you want, either you or maybe if you've got a caretaker can check your email. You can actually go and look at what we're supposed to be talking about. It's not black lives matter. Maybe you're in the wrong debate. I'm not sure if there was like a daily storm or episode that you're missed or something, but yeah. They want an easier topic. It's so pedantic. It's so pedantic. No. It's not pedantic. It's the point. It's not pedantic. It's not pedantic. They're not pedantic. They're not pedantic. The discourse. My fellow European friends. Okay. We came here to talk about whether or not there is a systemic bias against black people in the American criminal justice system. And the evidence to that effect is very compelling. We acknowledge that study on cop fire delay times. It does not rebuke our point in any way shape or form. And it's entirely possible for a criminal justice system, which is generally biased against black people to sometimes have disproportionate outcomes against white people. For example, I believe that for the most part, we live in a pretty sexist society against women, but men get shafted in some pretty specific ways that I'm happy to acknowledge. But when I'm trying to talk about society at large, it's a little weird if we're looking at a totality of data and you keep pointing out like family courts. And that's what we're doing right now, essentially. So if we may, I'd like to move on to another study. I'm very interested in hearing how you're able to divinely talk about which correlative factors they weren't able to account for in this one. In this study, two groups of mock jurors were given a collection of race-neutral evidence from an armed robbery with one group's alleged perpetrator being shown to be light-skinned and the other dark-skinned. These mock jurors were significantly more likely to evaluate ambiguous, racial-neutral evidence against the dark-skinned suspect as incriminating and more likely to find that dark-skinned subject guilty. Now, there are no other confounding variables here. It's a study. It's an experiment. There's nothing else. It's all mocked. And yet, in spite of that, the jurors, black and white, were more likely to find criminality in the actions of the alleged dark-skinned perpetrator. So the black people are racist against black people, too. We're talking about systems here. Well, are systems made up of people, or are they just an agricultural cloud to the sky? I mean, even if we grant that and say, yeah, black people could be racist against white people as well. I mean, the problem right now is that white people have the predominant power in the criminal justice system. So it seems like that's the problem that we should be addressing right now. Where you got it was your study to show that. Study for that? Hold on. Wait, wait, wait. Where's my study to show that white people are the predominant power in? Yes. I mean, I could do a composition of Congress. Show me a study. Are white people more likely to be, I don't know, the mayor of a black majority city? We don't need to sing to the bad faith. Are white people the police chiefs in every place from St. Louis to the Christ? This actually cracks. You think Western civilization is being destroyed. So you must think black people are actually in charge of America. That actually makes sense from your perspective. Let me correct you on that. You think Obama's still the shadow person? I personally have no hatred, personal hatred for black people. I don't. And I don't think they're in charge. I think Jews are in charge. That's who I think is. We know. So if you want to talk about that, we can have another discussion about that. But I know you'd like to move to that because it's another opportunity for you to use a bunch of spurious conspiratorial claims without looking at any evidence. Meanwhile, here you are talking about this white privilege office. Do you want to respond to the study that I have never said white privilege once in this entire discussion? I want destiny to show me a study showing that white people are disproportionately powerful. Are you pivoting? No. He's actually. Are you avoiding? And he has no evidence to back it up. Answer the question. What question do you want to answer? Answer the question, striker. What question? Striker. Why were those mob jurors biased? Well, your claim is that black people are racist against black people. No. No. Our claim is that jurors, whether or not they're black or white, Asian, Hispanic, engaged in bias against dark-skinned individuals. Now, in America, where you are tried by a jury of your peers. Show me your filming statistics about that bias. Show me your statistics about that bias. So in America, we are tried by a jury of our peers, meaning that our juries will be made up of black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Hispanic. I'm asking you, what is the origin of that bias? Explain that to me. Wait, wait, wait. So again, you know there's a bias. No, I'm not saying. You're just OK with that. No, hold on. I'm not admitting that. I'm saying you're saying that all races are biased against black people. You're justifying a racial bias right now. You're doing it. You're making my argument for me. Calling people. First of all, I don't give a shit if you call me racist in second of all. That's my argument easier. Maybe racial biases are real. I mean, men, I guarantee that there are studies that show men are more likely to be frowned upon by a jury than women. Yes. There's plenty of studies. Yes. So is that because of systematic misandry? Biasy. Yes, against men in the criminal justice system. Yes, for violent crimes, men are significantly more likely to be sentenced. I've talked about that on stream. So that's anti-male bias. Yes, or I guess too light on women. I don't really know. But it's one of those things. Yeah. So what's your solution to that? Is that to increase penalties? So you really are pivoting. I actually just responded to your question. You're unwilling to address the specific thing that I just said. Are men more likely to be or are juries more likely to be biased against men? Why are you pivoting? Because men are juries more likely because I'm trying. Why are you pivoting? If we talk about race, you're set in your ideology, right? Why? You have a racial ideology. You don't have a canned line for the rest of the stuff. So here you go. If a jury is more biased against black people, what were the factors like the nature of the crime, the rap sheet of the black criminal? All of these things. Wait, this is an experiment. There's no rap sheet. No, no, actually, I'm going through the thing right now. And he does bring up a good point. Because all of these crimes were stealing truckloads of Nikes. So Stryker actually just completely blew us out of the water on that one. I'm sorry. It's an experiment, Stryker. There's no other correlating factor you can contribute to. I understand these aren't real life people, right? They don't know that these aren't real. What I'm saying is that what I'm talking to. What I'm saying is just like Jesse Jackson. Hold on. You just have to hold on a second. Another reason why it's just like Jesse Jackson said once once that when he hears footsteps behind him and he turns around and sees a black man, he's a lot more scared than if he sees a white man. Who? What are we talking about? I'm sorry. Is Jesse Jackson the secret fifth person here in this room? Juries are more likely. I don't know why we're talking about it. James? Juries are more likely to be, hold on a second. I'm getting a phone call here. He has quickly fucked up some time off. We do have one. I want to make a quick announcement. We have something weird. We're both computers. I can't currently access the super chats. I think I just tweeted YouTube. I don't know if this is like for everybody or just me. But it is on both computers. So it's also on multiple browsers. Don't worry, folks, working on it. But just want to let you know. So maybe we'll just go a little bit longer than expected. We crashed YouTube. I'm not sure what's going on. I can get them to load in the Creator Studio, but I can't pull them up where it has their own little subpage. That's OK. We were fucking a little heated. I'm happy to have the moment. I love chilling, taking a breath. So we are OK now. Folks, got to warn you. At this point, it's going to be really hard for us to, if you're firing in a super chat now, it's going to be really, really hard for us to get to it based on how many we have, which looks like a lot. So I want to let you know, like, super chat at your own risk. And if you guys had other points that you wanted to get to. Yeah, and I would just like to make the point that I think we all can acknowledge that there will be among, if you're talking about a black person or a white person, an Asian person, in the person of any race, there will be some built-in in-group preference there. Regardless of who you're talking about, people are naturally preferential towards their own. And so if we have then a system that, by the way, does its best to- And why are the black jurors also biased against- Well, no. Well, if I could just- Hold on, hold on. I could just complete- He's actually just completely making an argument for us. Yeah, go ahead and finish. And then we'll- No, I'm saying that these people, it's natural for human beings to have some in-group preference. That is just a fact. So then how do you build a system that accommodates, that accommodates both blacks and whites, that accommodates these two different groups? And let me finish, Destiny. Because the question then is, when you mentioned having a jury of your peers, can you ever really have a jury of your peers if that jury of your peers is not of the same race of you? Right. And I think a lot of, actually a lot of blacks, this is one of their demands, is to have all black jurors for black suspects. Now, I think that is a fair demand to make, and that's a demand that a black nationalist or a black activist would probably make. And that's a demand that, I think, Striker and I would make for whites as well. And so the only way to accomplish, if you believe it is possible to have this system that treats all people fairly, regardless of the race, is to have separate systems. To have separate courts of law, separate judicial systems, one for blacks and one for whites. And that would then solve, that would solve the problem. Black police, black courts, black juries, black judges for black people, and white people. And that would then solve this issue. And by the way, it would be very interesting then to do that same study that you keep mentioning about jury bias and so on and so forth. Still haven't responded to it, by the way. Well, I'm making the point that if you then saw blacks, this black judicial system, continue to be biased against darker skin blacks. I mean, at that point, it's like, what do we, what do you even do with that? Right, if that's just, if that's how blacks are going to govern them. What's the solution to this? So yeah, so I think you've conceded. Yeah, no, I actually think that that's a really good question that James, the other, James also brings up. I think that we should come back and we could have a second debate on how do we address the racial biases that exist inside the criminal justice system? Because also just made a huge argument that we all have in-group preferences. White people are currently, you know, make up the majority of like legislative branches of district judges, judges everywhere. So we've already conceded the point completely, basically, that you are, that we are in fact correct. I don't need to, no, I don't need to. Also just concede your argument entirely. You just said that we all have in-group preferences. No. No, because that's wrong. We don't need to find data. Excuse me, can I finish my point? One second, one second. But as European gentlemen, okay, European gentlemen, okay, with great traditions from Europe, okay, we should allow each other to speak. Yeah, it's called America. I'm an American. You do not call me a European. Thank you. I'm like 50-50 European-American. It depends on who I'm talking to at the time. But anyway, yeah, so if you can see that, we could come back and we could have a discussion on how should we sit here and address the problems of systemic racism. But if you're gonna sit here and can see that systemic racism exists, then why don't we have that discussion now? Well, actually- Well, because we didn't prepare for that. Unlike you guys, we actually prepared for our conversations. Well, no, I'd like to make a very important corresponding point to what I just said. This is that actually, when you look at how whites are treated by the justice system, even though there is this in-group preference, whites are actually treated very poorly by this justice system in the United States. We can look at, for example, the right to peacefully protest. How are our white peaceful protests treated versus black people? This has come violently. You don't wanna get into this. Oh, sure we do. Sure we do. This is some like tier 11 dumbfuck art. We can debate that at another time, but the point we're getting at here is if black people, whether real or not, me and James are not conservatives. We're not invested in a perfectly objective justice system at all. We know. I am willing to listen to black people. I'm willing to listen to black people, like in Black Lives Matter, who are demanding hospitals that are staffed and for blacks, we want the same for whites. Let's do that. Who the fuck? The obvious solution to systematic racism to the extent that- We'll talk about it right now. Let's let them finish. Brownist will come right back to you, Washington. The obvious solution to black people feeling like they live under a racist system is to give black people their own rights in their own system. Isn't that the obvious solution here? Okay. Where do we- I mean, I don't even know who he's arguing against at this point. Yeah. We, okay. So you agree. Separate systems are so helpful. Hold on. So really, really quickly, okay? Because trying to make any points to you people is like pulling teeth. So the argument is conceded. There is a bias in the criminal justice system in the country of the United States of America. Now I would point out factors like even a majority black cities, there's still not a supremely large bias against white individuals who are tried in those systems. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case. And whereas black people in very white cities tend to have the opposite inflicted on them. So the idea that this in group preference is some sort of neutral, socially ambivalent force that equally directs black people against whites and white people against blacks doesn't really seem to be true. The fact that you would try to defer to white protests as a sort of measuring stick for how white people are treated by our criminal justice system is pretty funny. If you wanna have a conversation about what can be done to improve the disparity in our country's criminal and racial injustice, I mean, you're gonna have to provide data. I'll provide data. Ethno state. Wait, before they respond to, before they respond to, I would like to say it's pretty funny that you think talking to people from like the nation of Islam is like representative of black opinions across the United States. I'd be like me saying I talked to Charlottesville Neo-Nazi marchers and I talked to these people and I think that their opinions are representative of even the conservative party. We have a Charlottesville Neo-Nazi marcher pickets. You and Vash have thousands of progressive fans. You and Vash have thousands of progressive fans and couldn't find a single black person to at least bring on as a fucking token. Wait, we don't like tokenism. Well, and I'd like to just add on what you're saying. Right, you don't have black people at all. At least conservatives have their tokens. I'm the streamer. Get back to the back to the back to what we're saying. Have you seen the voter base? Are you serious right now? What do you mean? Back to what we were saying. Back to what we were saying. It's a strong African-American Republican vote. The factor of racism, you guys aren't letting me talk. Yeah, the factor of racism is 100% eliminated by having a system where black people have black police. They have black community leaders. They have black judges and jurors. That is entirely a non-factor. There is no chance of a white person discriminating or an Asian person or any other kind of person like that. Discriminating on a jury or as a police officer or anything if we only have separate systems. Then explain Ferguson. Ferguson led by black people, black police officers majority, black people were treated fucking horribly in that city. I'm saying if racism is the original sin of white people, which I have to say. Wait, stop with all this self persecutory bullshit. I'm not interested in reading your fucking MySpace blog. I didn't say shit about white people. I'm asking you if black people will treat black folk better and white folk will treat white folk better. Explain to me why Ferguson as a federal investigation was shown to be massively biased against its black inhabitants in spite of the fact that all of us- Ferguson was run by a Republican mayor for your information. Wait, you want to look at the demographics of that city? Wait, wait, wait. Ferguson has many white people in it and it has a conservative mayor and there's a lot of- Wait, you're weaseling. Wait, you're weaseling. But I mean, the idea is if you want to remove a variable, if we want to be scientific and remove the independent variable here, we can just remove diversity, right? And if you want to find how people will treat each other. Well, it does because then there's no opportunity for white racism or black racism. We're not saying white on black racism. We're saying systemic racism. If you want to say black people in a system. All right. Okay, one last thing. If, you know, listen, I sympathize with black people that go to school and have to read Shakespeare. Go to school and it's named after some white man or something. I sympathize that black people don't feel any connection to this stuff. I totally sympathize because when I had to read fucking Chinua Achebi, I felt no connection to that either. So the point I'm making here is that black people have a right to their own community, their own police, their own culture, and to be taught their own values in school. And I agree. Listen, the main black criticism here of the criminal justice system is that it's a system created by whites for whites to benefit whites. Whatever the merits of that argument is, I don't even care. Let's create a system for blacks by blacks. And if you were correct, then it should be easy for you to find a study on how greater levels of black representation in city councils, mayorships, and police representation leads to a decrease in the disproportionately negative treatment of black citizens in that city. I guarantee you, you will not be able to find that study. So I would just like to say that in terms of talking about the breakdown for how we change a lot of this stuff, if we wanted to do a separate conversation on this, I'm really hesitant to do it on the fly, but I'm pretty sure me and Vosh between us have 20 different suggestions related to the war on drugs. It's funny, you guys brought up black juries, black people, community policing is one of the big things that a lot of people actually want in this country. Like we could name like 20 policies off here. I'd be super interested, Striker, and you're suggested realistic, politically possible policies that are gonna get us to a fucking like kingdoms of different racial countries in the United States. What a fucking pipe dream. Holy shit. I look forward to being like, here's a policy we could maybe look at, here's some studies on it. You're like, well, if we just had an ethno state, we wouldn't have that problem. Yeah, how fucking boring. I'm not saying necessarily an ethno state, but if black people wanna live in their own communities with their own system, I personally think they have a right to do that. Okay, so that would be the discussion. Now, you two, the white liberals that have crowned themselves the leaders of the black community, you may disagree that that's what's good for black people. I'd rather have this conversation with actual black people and see what they want. Why the fuck do we have to argue with you about this? Why did you agree to this debate, Striker? Why did you agree to this debate if you didn't wanna talk to white people about this? They didn't wanna talk to us. You guys are just here to obfuscate things that white people and black people, by and large, will agree with if they sit down and have a conversation. Well, you Jews and distractors and liberals, all this shit that you people represent, you have the minority opinion. Probably could go into Q and A now. Is this a closing statement? So what is it called when the senator won't stop talking? FiliBuster. FiliBuster, yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. So basically, the problem is that they wanted to come and have this conversation. They wanted to appeal to one or two random numbers like that. And then he realized, oh shit, I have nothing to say. Why am I talking to white people? Oh no. And then instead of debating black lives matter, we got cuck lives matter debate. Why do we, we never, this debate was never, so wait, first off, I would like to make a request to the moderator. James, can you tell me one, if the statement of what we were gonna be debating is known by all parties beforehand? Two, can you read that statement? And three, did Striker know, okay, and I sincerely ask this, did Striker know that me and Vosh were white coming into this debate? Because destiny kind of sounds like a black girl's name. Maybe he forgot. The last time we had a horrendously embarrassing conversation where he tried to say jazz wasn't real music. Maybe he just forgot that we were both white, I'm not sure. Can you verify those three things for me? I don't know how you're gonna do the third part. It's not destiny, jazz. He must've been black. I can do the first two. So if you guys would like, let's see. My camera's on, right? You can see. I know that my lighting's a little dark right now, but like most people would consider me white. I would say the vast majority of Europeans that see me would probably consider me white. I'm at a pretty pale. You get to speak on behalf of what black people think. Speaking of, we're not talking about what black people think. We're just going over some studies. Because we haven't actually completed. I mean, we have not conceded the point that in the United States, there is a rampant systemic bias against blacks in the criminal justice system. I still disagree with that, Striker. And I still disagree with that. Wait, also, we don't think there is destiny. If I can get more than 15 seconds, James, that would be excellent. The idea that there is a widespread systemic bias against blacks, which is not borne out when we look at federal policing, federal law enforcement, for example. We look... What studies? What data? What studies? Wait, wait. In what way? I love it when you ask me for data. It's bullshit. It's none of the capital of Britain. Show me a study. Wait, wait. Whoa, whoa, you're just going to appeal to that? Like, well, we can see by looking at federal data all night long. Wait, you can just take the question on the entire argument? If a Sunday follows Saturday, show me the data. One second. I do have the phrase, if you guys want me to read the statement, I can, otherwise. Go for that. If I could finish the point that I'm making without interjection. If you wanna finish this and then I'll read the statement and then we should probably go into the closings. Yeah, so let's look at federal law enforcement, for example, the United States Department of Justice. The United States Department of Justice exists almost solely to identify white people in this country and charge them with federal hate crimes and prosecute them, in cases such as the two men in Georgia who are being targeted with hate crimes charges. The man in, what is it, New Mexico? White man in New Mexico who defended himself against anarchists that were threatening to kill him. He was now finding himself the subject of a federal hate crimes investigation. Why, if there's a systemic bias at the system-wide level, you'd find it in the federal level. Why is the White Sea- Their counterargument is that three White people have been charged. No, let me finish. These are examples. Oh, there it is. And where's the data? Examples. Examples aren't data, dude. We do have- Right, but James, hold on, let me finish. If you had a rampant systemic anti-black bias in federal law enforcement, you would expect there to be similar charges, hate crime charges against blacks when blacks do things such as say, I hate white people and attack whites, such as when blacks engage in violence against whites and express a racial animus. If you look at the statistics on this, which I will find for you in about 15 seconds, blacks are actually undercharged in federal hate crimes, allegedly, under federal hate crimes investigations, despite them committing more violent crimes. So we have a federal- But, hey, crimes are violent crimes. They are under-represented in terms of them being charged for violent hate crimes. They are under-represented in terms of being charged and investigated. They're under-investigated for hate crimes. The FBI doesn't even bother policing blacks. What are we- Can we- Wait, stop, stop. Come on. Let me talk for a second. Well, you've been talking for a while. You can look at the murder clearance rate since the 1960s. It's gone in many, many cities from like 90% clearance to 60% clearance. The FBI has no interest in that. Meanwhile, they'll send 15 agents to go investigate a fake noose- Can you provide studies on this data? There you go. Yeah, there you go. Can you answer that? I mean, how do you- We don't know. There's no way to answer one-off examples. Where is your study to explain this? There's not a study- You provided- One-off example. I don't understand. Yeah, this is like- Wait, wait, wait, wait. The idea of reality doesn't exist unless it comes from an ivory tower. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. You were literally just like- We can look at real- You're some example- Wait, wait, wait, wait. That's his bad faith. I appeal to the moderator for me. Dating and cruelty. Can we get a response to that? Just a- Okay, everybody on the same page? Okay. Okay, I just- The idea of him like, here are some examples where's your study to explain it? What the fuck are you talking about? Right, because your appeals are solely to academic authority. And that's fine if you want to do that. But we can look at the facts as they are. I provide the studies, though. They don't ask you for them. Look at the facts as they are. And we can say are they true or not? And we don't need something to be blessed by the academic, by the ivory tower academics for it to be real. We can look at real examples of real things happening in the real world. Yeah, and you know, these guys, these guys, hold on, all the institutions are on their side. We gotta switch it back. Go on. Okay, just next time, because I fully admit I'm a pussy, I would have dodged this debate if he told me that we can't use any academic evidence. Because it's a huge waste of time. Like if we were going to start off with like, well, studies don't count, we're going to have to go by news reports. Like the three or four examples that I bring up, like what a waste of fucking time. You're lying. You're lying. Dude, you literally, there are going to be people who are constantly lying. They're paid opposition for the conservative. That's how fucking stupid you look right now. Like this is so stupid. Wait, can we please calm down? Actually, I have to go through my pay-ball transactions. I might have paid for this opposition, because of how fucking stupid you look right now. I don't even fucking remember right now. That's how embarrassing this conversation is. Back to the basics. Yeah, so we'll wait. How will we get back to the basics, which was, James the moderator, would you kindly repeat to everyone why we came here and whether or not everyone was made aware of the debate topic before we arrived here in the Zoom call? Is everybody good with this? All else equal. African-American people are treated worse by the criminal justice system for no discernible reasons, not directly or indirectly influenced by racism or race-based policies. Okay, so that was what we were supposed to be talking about. Every single time you pivot off the topic of discussion, you defer to data points that are not contextualized, which is what you have to do to understand what data means. This is literally correlation causation. I learned this in middle school. Every time you do that, you are silently conceding to us the fact that not only are you wrong, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. So in the absence of any available arguments on your part and as boring as this is getting, I think it would be wonderful if we could defer to the comparatively intelligent chatters and the super chats in which they have thrown us questions. You guys weren't prepared at all to discuss solutions to this or anything like that. That's because it wasn't a topic. No, that's because you don't like the solution. No, that's because it wasn't the topic. One second, gentlemen. Okay, so what we'll do is we had discussed right at the very start before we went live that we would have these roughly one or two minute closing. So what we'll do is James, real quick. Can you read the context of the emails we shared? Me, you, Mike and James. Now context is important. It's very important because we initially asked James for black people on the other side so we can discuss these solutions and so on. Do you have a study on that? Can you? Is that it? I'm asking you, do you have a study on that? Yeah, I mean, it's true. You asked for black opponents. I can pull that up and read it if you'd like. What happened when Mike Enoch saw that the conversation was going to be against two people that he knew he'd lose his shit over? He left. It was a waste of time. Yeah, Enoch was smart. He backed out. If it's a first of all, this is not a waste of time. He's making a lot of money right now. Okay, so number one, that's not a waste of time. I'm making a lot of money right now. Thank you very much. James. And number two, Mike said he could do it in July because he needed to leave. This is such a fact. One second. It's going to be fair. I've got a, what do you guys want me to read? I want you to read the fact that Mike said he could do it in the debate in July because he's, first of all, he's doing stuff with the business. He's doing a bunch of other shit. Like there's a lot of projects going on. These people are not even worth his time. These two losers. So it's true that Mike said, yes. But he didn't waste his time then. That is his business, things had ramped up and he, that was why he was not going to be here. If you guys want to come back in July, I'm open to it. Or if it's on another channel, we'll promote it, we'll tweet it, we'll do whatever we can so people see it there. But, there you go. That was the, wait, you can't point to the first. Show me the data. You can't point at the first part of your negotiation and go, why didn't we do that? Where did we end up with this? You accepted the debate after you knew the opponents. Yeah, like what, how stupid? We, okay, so this is a chance for you to do it. That's like offering like 80K for a salary for a job and they come back at 60 and then at the end of the month you're like, why do you think we initially touched about, like how fucking stupid are you? Let's go to Superchats. Let's go to Superchats. Well, closing, so that would be Stryker and also first. We'll kick it over. Would you like one or two minutes for each person? I won't need long, whatever they want. Yeah, sure, I could take that. Yeah, I think it's eminently clear that they, that if we, if this conversation is supposed to be a comparison of who is best at going through JSTOR and clipping abstracts that they think reinforce their points, you know, that's, if that's the metric you want to use, that's absolutely fine. But I think when it comes to addressing the real solutions or the problems that are manifest out of racial tensions in the United States, it's clear that only one side here is prepared with honest answers and an honest assessment of the inevitability of some of these problems. And like we said, the idea that there is widespread of racism and anti-black treatment, blacks are just so maligned by the criminal justice system that is debatable. I'm skeptical of that. There is evidence in policing. There's evidence in terms of black crime. This is just not the case of blacks being undercharged for things like hate crimes. You know, we can talk about all of that. But if you believe that blacks and whites both feel aggrieved by a criminal justice system that is not working for them and they feel aggrieved as a condition of racial diversity, then there is only one answer. And that answer is to have separate systems. You cannot coexist in the same system because there will always be a group that perceives that they are being slighted, whether that's empirically backed up by those in ivory towers or not. So the idea that you can divorce these two things, I don't think you can. I don't think you can divorce the conversation about whether or not there is a problem without being willing to talk about how to solve that problem. And my problem with the criminal justice system is not that blacks are being mistreated. My problem is, if anything, that black criminality is not being policed hard enough and that whites are being mistreated by the system, generally speaking. But Striker and I, we are more than prepared to talk about how to solve this. And we solve this by having separate systems for separate people according to their own separate values. That is the only answer. And if we were in a position to be able to talk to black leaders about this, they would agree with us. But white liberals is so funny how white liberals will insist on keeping blacks and whites trapped in the same system that they assert is hurting blacks so. How many minutes? Here they are insisting that they be trapped in the system together. Very funny. Yeah, so I'll go two minutes 12. So we'll give everybody two minutes and 12 seconds. Go ahead. Gotcha. So first of all, if blacks and whites are the same, this conversation wouldn't have been happening. Like there's no congressional hearing on whether white police officers are racist to East Asians, right? So white liberals may virtue signal in support of anti-racism, but in practice, they're all fleeing the big cities that are facing unrest right now. There's all kinds of articles in various mainstream publications about urban exodus. It's mostly these white liberal types. It's just a ridiculous argument to have because these people have no skin in the game. They are not living in these black communities. They probably don't know any black people other than Jesse Lee Peterson. So I don't even understand why they're doing this. Like this is just absurd. We need to frankly have a very frank discussion with the black community, with their leadership, or just any black person actually. I do, I am curious to hear their perspective. Their perspective is important here because they're the ones that are complaining about this stuff. So I'd like to have a conversation with them. This is something that never happens. The ADL recently, Lewis Farrakhan was gonna give his capstone speech of his political and social career as an activist, as a black leader. And more people know Lewis Farrakhan, more black people approve and know of Lewis Farrakhan than do Destiny and Vowish. I guarantee you that. And he was going to give this big address on Fox News and the Anti-Defamation League under the Zionist Jonathan Greenblatt got him censored. So the point is real black voices aren't even heard in these discussions. All right, here we are, the so-called evil neo-Nazis, demanding that we have some black people at the table and we come to an agreement, okay? Because it's pretty obvious the multiculturalism is the problem because no one here would disagree that America has become significantly less racist as a society since the 1950s. And yet accusations of racism have only gotten worse. So clearly this system, this liberal system, neo-liberal capitalist Zionist system is not working for black people, it's not working for white people. I've had conversations with prominent blacks about this and they agree with me. Now show me what prominent blacks agree with Destiny and Vowish. The answer is zero. They don't have anyone. So one last thing, Mark Luther King, what did he say? Mark Luther King said very, very, very clearly the white moderate is talking about white liberals, white moderate is the problem. I agree with him. These are the people that get in the way and they disingenuously change the topic or they make it about white guilt and things like that. We don't wanna talk to these people anymore. Black people don't even like you. So give me a fucking break. Excellent. You bet. Do you mind if I take the floor, Destiny? Yeah, you can go first, go first. Yeah, okay. So I know that these are closing statements and they're not supposed to contain arguments, but even I am shocked by the irrelevance of especially strikers chosen end. God, where do I even begin? It's funny that you would make jokes about us being a liberals when you're obsession with identity politics rivals that of the most inebriated wine moms. We wanted to debate black people. You're white. You're not a representative of the black community. We, you, Louis Farrakhan was loved by black people. How many black people love Destiny and whatever it takes to soothe your wounds after coming here with no fucking arguments? At no point did Destiny and I make the argument that in this country there is a system of white people hurting black people or black people hurting white people, only that the systems within this country are biased largely against black people. The reason we point this out is because we want to ameliorate and address these problems. The reason we point this out is because we share the dreams of so many other black leaders throughout the history of this country. And I know neither of you give a single shit what black leaders in this country have historically pushed for but I'll address that anyway. To see this country mended along its racial lines whereas you would see it exacerbated and the faults attributed to, I suppose for you two would be the Jews but to others would be other groups. Everything that I do is done out of a love both of black people and of people of other races and what's more your, this is you in particular also, repeated insistence that we should not have to defer to the ivory tower to make our arguments is very telling because if what you were saying was true that a society run by black people would not be discriminated against black people and vice versa with white people, there would be data on it and there would be studies on it because that would appeal to the liberal wine mom argument. Oh, if we just make the mayor black and the police chief black then there won't be any racism against black people. The people, they would get grants for that research but you will not find research affirming that position. You don't dislike the ivory tower because it's elitist. You dislike it because you know it will trash your arguments time and time again. So, yeah, to that you may have what you will. Destiny? Just before I start this, I just wanna say I do submit myself to third party arbitration. If a third party wants to go through my PayPal or bank statements, I didn't pay James or Eric to be here. I know that it might seem otherwise but I swear to God I haven't and I will submit myself to somebody else who wanna verify that. Like, you keep saying over and over again that like, I'm talking to black separatist groups and they wanna separate. Yeah, no fucking shit. If you're gonna cite the nation of Islam or hoteps or even the new black panthers who are all black separatist groups as being people that wanna separate from the United States, like, congratulate your fucking nations. It's so funny that you guys will do this and the next breath cry that like, they call every single conservative a neo-Nazi. They call every single blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Well, you're trying to say the nation of Islam represents black America. How hilariously fucking stupid. And then to James, his entire thing about how like, oh, well you can't talk about problems without talking about solutions. Of course you can. What the fuck kind of stupid ass shit is that? You have to identify problems before you can talk about any solutions. You can't talk about solutions and problems on the same breath. You don't even agree on what the fucking problem is, which was supposed to be what this conversation was about. It was a conversation on what is the problem right now? Is there or is there not systemic racism? Instead we totally moved off of that and we've gone to this fantastic idea of creating separate but equal ethno-states all while hilariously using fucking Martin Luther King and even Malcolm X who later in his life realized that segregation was fucking stupid as though these guys would be coming out in favor of your argument today is just so hilariously fucking stupid. And I think that it's perfect. I think it encapsulates your entire argument that you thought that you could prove that by using single quotes by them that you could prove that they were in favor of segregation the same way that you try to use like a single stat or single data point to prove some non-existent argument you've attempted and failed horribly to make about systemic issues in the United States and the criminal justice system. That's all I got. Destiny's like the guy who's tire blows out of the highway and then stands there looking at it like, well. If I remember right, Destiny and Vosh get the closings because we let you guys start. I could, I could, yeah, I could, okay. To be fair. Next, thanks for your questions. We Jerkin asked Reddit. They said Reddit changed its hate speech policy to allow hate speech against quote, the majority unquote, i.e. white people. Why is being anti-white so good for business? I don't know if this is a sincere question now that I read it. Can you find me anywhere in the Reddit TOS where they say they're encouraging anti-white discrimination? Find that for me and I'll answer it. Yeah, well, this is what Spez said in the thread. This is part of their updated rule one guidelines is that that speech against minority groups, that is those that are not in the majority. I can find the exact quote for you. It's on the, it's in the thread. But yeah, when you read it, it turns to service. Then shouldn't you be pushing for a demographic replacement because then whites will be a majority and they'll be protected on Reddit. No, they won't. That's the fun. That's actually, that's a good point that whites, one would think if the system, if all else were equal, that whites would be protected under civil rights law. But as we see, that is not the case. As we see whites actually do not find ourselves protected by civil rights legislation. And I'm sorry, can you be fired for being white? Yeah. You can be fired for not saying black lives matter actually. Yes, you can. Well, that's a political opinion. That's not a protected class. It's called affirmative action. That's why blacks are more likely to get a public sector. Oh yeah, remember when you, when you took those cases of the Supreme Court and you lost? Is there anything else you have? Oh wow. Yeah, that's exactly our point. Just to get to the, that's exactly our point. Oh shit. I think we can all agree. That racial bias didn't exist in the same way that you, you're giving us our, that snarkily laughing. We need to hasten it. I'm giving you your points when you guys spread the entire argument. You said whites, you sued based on discrimination and lost in court. That's a symptom of an anti-whites. Yeah, and if you actually followed that, I didn't get to make a case. When it was approved, we were right all along. The original, the original Super Chat was challenging Destiny and Vosh. So to not getting up on them, I gotta give them the last word from them. Oh yeah, and I'll wait. If you want an actual answer, there's nothing anti-white about the policies there. The reason why some websites are more keen to protect against discrimination against minorities is because that type of discrimination tends to be a lot more harmful. You don't see like these gigantic, data. Just short and sweet. I hate to be so pushy. Oh yeah, yeah, sure. Cause it's, cause your, cause your question is dumb and it's not true. There, sorry. Wool's game D, thanks for your question said, what do Vosh and Destiny think about? Malcolm X collaborating with ANP founder, George Lincoln Rockwell, to establish a mutually interested black separation plan. He moved back on that later in his life. I disagree with that. I don't, I don't, I don't slavishly devote myself to the, the scripture of any figure. I think that like many great men, Malcolm X had many good opinions and many bad, and I disagree with that one. Next. Well, there's, but the problem is there's more blacks praising Nazis and there are blacks praising white liberals. How do you explain that historically? Blacks approve of what the fuck you guys are doing. What? Show me a quote. You said I use anecdotes of great black leaders. Show me a quote of a black leader that says I love white liberals. I think why do black people overwhelmingly vote for white liberals? I don't fucking know, who cares? The white people vote for conservatives or just as anti-white as the Democrats. You do read that argument, follow up real quick. The vast majority of black people voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Yes. Like this is completely untenable. And they also voted for Biden over the far more progressive Bernie Sanders. How do you explain that, Vosh? Wait, what does that have to do with Nazis? Ah, there we go. This is where we draw out the you are pivoting. Are you okay? Are you having a heat stroke? I have to get Vosh and Destiny last word just because it was directed at them. Next, J.A. Kess, this is for both sides. So we get both sides and maybe what we'll do is start with Vosh and Destiny and then we'll kick it over to Striker and also. So they asked, what do both sides of the debate feel about blacks having their own state with their own police force? So blacks having their own state with their own police. And do both sides agree that, this confuses me, agree that access to black people both in proximity and sexually is not a human right? What? Wait, what? Can you, or go ahead. Yeah, we had to get that one. Sure, the first part, so what do both sides of the debate feel about blacks having their own state with their own police? And then I don't know how separate this other question is. He said, do both sides agree that access to black people both in proximity and sexually is not a human right? Oh, I think they mean like if blacks and whites were separated into like geologically distant places. I don't think you have a human, I don't think people born in Minnesota have their human rights violated because there are no fucking black people around. I think, I believe in like individual rights. I think that anybody should be able to move to or do whatever they want, but I think as soon as you start discriminating against other people based on their race, we have a problem. If you wanna go ahead and move to, if you're black and you wanna move to some fucking African country because you wanna live amongst black people, that's fine, same with white people and wherever they wanna move to. But if you start trying to keep other people from coming in based on their skin color, I think that's an issue. An issue for who? For you? What a point to look at. Well, you know, that's actually an interesting point. Do you know what ethics is? Hold on, that's an interesting point. Like the concept? Because we only see that, you're talking about these two things as if they're equal, but we see in practice that they're not. There are not floods of whites moving to completely irrelevant. This is completely irrelevant. We were just talking ethically. No, you just set this up as an example, so we need to address it. There are not hordes of white people moving to black countries. Not yet. It's just not happening. But it's not going to. Oh, it'll happen. It'll happen. It'll happen just the way. People don't want to live there. Why do we see millions? Africa's blowing up right now, my dude. It's getting big. Pretty soon, people with your kids, your grandkids are gonna be running over to Uganda. This is just ridiculous because what we see is millions, in fact, millions of Africans moving into the West. They did a poll. I forget the institutes at Billions that pulled people in developing countries. And when they asked them, where would they most like to live? The number two answers were Germany and the United States. And so, you know, they were not saying they're developing countries. Yeah, they want to live around white people. They want to live in economically prosperous countries. It's access to white people everywhere. Eric and also, if you guys want to answer this question, you don't have to, but if you want, you can. And then we'll move on to the next one. The question. Yeah, we agree with the first part of the question. Blacks should be able to have their own states and police forces. I think Eric and I both agree on that. But the second question, is there some kind of right to black people and sexuality? No, and I would expand that to say there's also not a right, a human right, it's access to white countries or to white resources or white civilization or white states or white people. So yeah, I would agree with that statement. Gotcha. It's so hard to actually just answer the questions. I feel like they have like a script they go off on every time they get the chance to, but yeah, cry more. Oh, says a guy who reads abstracts off JSTOR. Oh, Jesus. Abstract is better than a single number at least. He insulted for reading data. This state of white nationalism in 2020. Seriously, you're literally like offended by species. No one's, wait a second. That's not fair. You read data. That's not what I'm saying. That's exactly what you're saying. That's exactly what you're saying. I'm saying that you are citing sociology and shit like that that is ideological. It's for people like you. Who else studies crime but sociologists? What do you want to say? Is this his publishing date on it? I can find you. He's asking for the last name of the people who published it. I can find you university studies from the People's Republic of China that prove race is real. The reason why is that Chinese universities don't have the same ideological problems American universities do, which are fine. We were having a debate on whether or not race is real. It'd be really good to bring those studies up, I guess. I can show it to you right now. 2019, they mapped out. All right, all right, James, my friend. All good? Great, thanks. Yeah, this game couldn't say something. Might as well have you, moderate. Sorry. No, I just like you. No, no, no, no, I'm teasing you. It's good, I appreciate it. And by the way, what people at home can't see, you are fucking yoked. That's nice. I met you in person. You are massive, my dude. We will get to the next one. So Osu, Osu, thanks for your question said, how can you support the police when they aid and abet the murderous family courts that separate fathers from their loving children on a daily basis? How can we stop the lib-fash family court judges? Who's that for? What is that for? I'm not exactly sure, to be honest. OK, the answer is that we can simultaneously recognize that there are problems within a system with the need to still support and reform the system. I mean, this is a stupid question. There's tons of problems with the police. That doesn't mean you get rid of them entirely or whatever. Or there are going to be tons of problems. That's, well, if we were arguing ACAB, then that would have been a better debate to have, I guess, huh? I'm just a humble progressive. OK, I'm joking. Sure. And even if I'm not actually closer to Varsh on this question, I fucking do. I guarantee you that however close you are to him, it is in a very strange way and probably for very fucking different reasons. Please don't get close to me, sir. Says the two fags. OK. Well, firstly, I'm only half. We're not going to have that. So I would like to clarify. OK, I'm only half fag. OK, so it's not fair that he keeps calling me gay. OK, I have a wonderful girlfriend, please. And then, number two, just because you have a problem with a particular part, just because. I really want to make it personal, but I'm trying not to, Shrecker, because I don't know much about the news you're after. They can send it to being fucked by us during this debate. So I don't see what that has to do. Like, I don't know. Like, it seems like they're not killing the girl. But anyway, you're going to recognize there's a problem with the system while still acknowledging other beneficial parts of it or saying you need to reform the system as a whole. Next. Appreciate your question. This one coming in from, want to remind folks, we, oh, in the chat, we do not want spam. So please, folks, don't spam. Otherwise, we're getting more aggressive with it, which is ban you if you're spamming. It's annoying. And let's see, two seconds. I got a little bit behind on the questions here. Thanks for your question from Jimmy Neutron. Forestriker, did you know, let's see. Gosh, okay, some of these are next. I bet. Let's see. I think this is a sincere question. Gustavian, thanks for your question. Said, I've heard some conflicting reports. Could Vosh please clarify his position on the destruction of the state of Israel? Oh, are we trying to do the Red-Brown Alliance here? No, I've been critical of Israel in some pretty hyperbolic ways in the past. But obviously, I would trend ideally towards reform over some crazy nuclear option. Good, that's the right answer. Next up, Bob Dole, thanks for your question. Forestriker and James, do you feel that patriot front is the face of nationalists organizing in America? They've been heavily ramping up their activism and seem to not be burdened by the drama that plagued previous orgs. I don't talk about activism. I mean, if that's the thing you wanna do, go for it. I don't have any chance. Yeah, I have good relations of patriot front. They're good guys. Next up, question for Stryker and Alsup. Why is your main evidence a policy that was only implemented to terrorize black communities in stop-and-frisk for pot? Well, it got a lot of guns off the street. And it, well, this is a question for us. And it got a lot of guns off the street. And it was, it can't let you talk on this one. No, no, it can't. You guys are interrupting each other right now. We went through the data on this and demonstrated that this was a policy that helped reduce New York's homicide rate at a faster rate than the national average. So, I mean- And another thing about the marijuana stuff, the problem with the marijuana studies, and this is, again, this is disingenuous, it's a political ideology of American universities which are private and rely on private grants with people with their own ideologies. Institutions are made up of people. And so what happens is they take two plus two and make five. And so you have a situation where blacks are more likely to be charged with marijuana charges. That's true. That's because they got some pot on them when they shoot another guy. That's why. It's very obvious. And have any data on that? The language, the language I'm trying to hear. Yes, I actually do. I will link it in the chat. And one more thing. People who feel terrorized, this is actually just exactly what Striker and I were saying is that people may feel terrorized or unfairly infringed upon by the system, black people might, but that is because this is a system, again, that was built by whites. And so if you feel terrorized or that it's unfair for you to be searched because you are more likely to be committing murder in the city, then that's an understandable objection you can have to the system. But this is how we're going to do things in the United States. So if you don't like that, that's fine. This is just further evidence for the necessity of separate systems. Just curious. You said that you did present the data on how many guns were found during Stop and Frisk. Did you actually, did I miss that? How many guns were found for Stop and Frisk? We demonstrated that Stop and Frisk and broken windows policing were helped New York City reduce their homicide rate faster than the national ones. That's not what I asked. You don't actually have the, oh, he's looking at his money right now trying to find it. So I can tell you some of those numbers. So here, just a real quick one. Just how effective these stops were. In 2012, the NYPD made some 532,000 stops. They found guns 715 times. That means that in less than 0.1% of all stops did they actually turn up any firearms? What a waste of our fucking money if you want to make a stupid statement. Do any studies that demonstrate that those people were not going to do, that those people were not violent criminals? What does that have to do with any of those? So how many, how many whites do they catch with guns? How many what? How many white people do they catch with guns? I'm talking about how the efficaciousness of Stop and Frisk, if it's taking you a half million stops to find a few, right? The racial disparities in Stop and Frisk in terms of discrimination. I don't think they're gonna get it. I think they're having a hard time following what I'm saying. I don't think they're gonna get it. I don't think they're gonna get it. We're not going to use those guns in shootings. 700 people, 700 lives could have been saved. Or more. Is that a constant question? Where's your study saying they weren't? Even if that was the case, don't you think maybe those half million police stops could have been used in other ways? Like maybe for instance, having background checks for private sellers for firearms, maybe that could get more violent firearms off the street. I mean, that was already in place in New York anyways, but- Oh yeah, across the entire country. Was that actually something that was like a United States- Oh, I forgot New York City was the only city that matters, the only one you guys prepared numbers for. Well, because you were talking specifically about stop and frisk, which is a New York City policy. You can smile while you want, but like a policy that was implemented only in New York City- This is ridiculous. This is ridiculous. What have we been talking about right now? Yeah, holy shit. The amount of bad faith is staggering. You're talking about New York City. We were a spot with New York City and you're saying, why are we talking about New York City? That's just- I'm saying that there is any number- Let's move on to the next question. The background checks are a number of generally- I agree, this is your time. There are any number of policies we could do that would probably be more financially viable than stop and frisk or taking guns. The argument he was making is that there is a ubiquitous ineffectiveness to stop and frisk with regards to getting guns off the streets that could be applied to better purposes. What city? What city? So why are you saying, why are we talking about New York? Well, I don't think- We're talking about New York because that's where stop and frisk was at. I don't think you can actually- Do you know what ubiquitous means? Okay, yeah. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Of course not, no. He didn't read that. That wasn't a word used to Latin Shakespeare, so. Yeah. That's a J-Store word right there. He's not touching that. That's a J-Store word, okay. So I do have to, I have to give a, because I think that Super Chat was originally directed at James and Eric. I got to give him the last word on that one and then we got to go to the next one. That was the one about stop and frisk. Oh yeah. If I- I just found something interesting here actually. February 2020, black police commissioner, black member of the, sorry, not police commissioner, member of the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons, Brandon Flood, black guy saying that he wants to implement stop and frisk in Pennsylvania to get illegal guns off the street. So I mean, look, if we're gonna talk about the black- That's our argument. The impact on black people in this country, maybe we should listen to actual blacks when they demand stop and frisk. And back to the person, to the person asking the question, one last thing about the person asking the question who said, this is a policy that terrorizes black people, which is fine. Yeah. Let's have different policies for different people then. In different neighborhoods, of course. I just, of course, the misunderstanding, no, you may not- I've got to give- The reason, the reason why Karen calls the police when a black man is approaching her and threatening her, is because Europeans and black people have a different concept of what a threat is, what danger is, and so on. And that may well be true. Well, that's just the misunderstanding that Karen's are. So the point is, the point is maybe Karen and that guy shouldn't be in the same area then. Next. Breton Langel, thanks for your question. Eric Stryker, you remember debating Breton, right? He says, I live- Watch me, by the way. Sorry. I'm sure he'll forgive you and you guys will reunite. He says, I lived in Harlem for 10 years. There was gentrification, but it's still majority black and always perfectly safe. Stop and Frisk was a monstrous policy. I don't know if they- I'll tell something to Breton, who I doubt is a native New Yorker. If you walk down the street in Harlem, there's a police officer on every corner. I don't know about right now, this moment, I haven't lived in New York in a bit, but there's a police officer on every corner. New York City has some of the most police officers per capita in the world. It has like a six or $7 billion police budget. So the reason why it's safe for Brenton Langell to walk through Harlem at night is because there's cops on every corner and Brenton Langell as an anarchist wants to abolish the cops. And I say, honestly, personally, all those white liberals, all those Zionists that live in Bushwick, that live in these hipsters, that live in Bushwick and Williamsburg in Harlem, you know what? I would say the cops should pull out and let them see what the world they want looks like. Next question for, this is a Google user said, what do you all, both parties, have to say regarding Asian people and their place in broader racial discourse? It seems like they're always completely overlooked when it comes to discussions like this. Yeah, Asian people are in a really unique position because there are a lot of the Asian representation we have in this country are either very wealthy immigrants or the children of wealthy immigrants who come here for economic or for educational opportunities, which means that they are, in some respects, a social minority, but in certain educational and economic senses actually disproportionately powerful. I think the reason why they aren't talked about as much is actually just because their situation is so complicated. And to be honest, it's something that I would need to like look more into before I felt comfortable making any strong statements. Gotcha, thanks so much. So I'll say this about Asian people. Asian people are largely invisible. Was this our question? Yeah, it was for everyone. Asian people are largely invisible in our society. That's true. And they don't really have anyone pandering to them or anything, because they don't really have that many grievances in terms of day-to-day basis, which is whatever. They just mind their own business. What I'd say, though, is that in general, I think we need a discussion with all the races at the table, including Asians, about what's going on with this country. Basically, everyone agrees, maybe not the two debating opponents, everyone agrees that America is broken. America is a declining empire and there's a lot of things going on. You don't think I think America is broken? You sound like a liberal, so I don't know. But anyway. You're the one who's super obsessed with it. I don't know anything about you. Do you even know what it, wait, what does a liberal mean to you? He doesn't know. A liberal is a person that believes in individual maximalism as a value. Okay, that's a political value. Wait, hold on, I'm sorry. I'm curious, what did Josh say earlier that he believes in individual liberty and the maximizing egalitarianism? So yeah, I mean, you did actually. Is that what you guys believe? In a classical liberal sense, but most Americans would also be, wait, you said it, wait. You said most Americans would agree this country is broken, so most of America is a liberal. Or Destiny can also answer the question about Asians. Anyway, Destiny, good one. Wait, is most America liberal? What is most of America? If most of America agrees America is broken, but liberals don't think America is broken. Wouldn't a liberal recognize that there are systemic injustices in America which would lead them to believe America is broken? The approval rate for Congress, it's 12%. 12% approves of Congress. Always a new question. Anything for Destiny? If you had a point, Destiny, I'll let you give you a shot to it. Yeah, I don't even know. Statements are making are inconsistent with themselves. And then also, what Varsh brought up before, like Chinese people represent like the second largest immigrant group in the country, like tons of Chinese people that come over here from China. Like of course, if you've got the money to immigrate halfway around the fucking world and then come to another place for opportunities in education and shit, you're gonna be like massively represented in higher portions of the population and have no big problems. But also the fact that like, do you wanna pretend that like Asian people haven't had problems in the history of America? I mean, we literally had internment camps here. No one's even arguing that. I do appreciate the fact that you said I must not think America is broken because I'm a liberal, but it was my inclination towards liberal values such as a pursuit of justice and equality that led me to make the argument that America is broken in this debate. So you, okay, all right. Yeah, I know. The point is that like Nigerians are also more successful economically than whites and they're black and we can't just go on forever. And the reason is that, yeah, I'll say this. Nigerians that immigrate to America come from a certain, they're the high class of Nigeria. What are you talking about? Okay, go look up when you get a chance. No, I know, but we were talking about Asian immigrants. What are we? The point is, it's about, this is a question that also has immigrants in general, right? Let's talk about immigrants in general. Basically what's going on here is that you guys claim America is this country or whatever and black people do just fine if they're from Nigeria, that totally destroys your point, but that's a very 1.0 like basic point. Let's just move on. Well, if I could just say one thing about Asians real quick, I think that the impact of Asian immigration on Native American workers, Native Americans, not Indian Americans, but Native born Americans is actually vastly under discussed. And the majority of those immigrants, Chinese immigrants specifically that you're talking about are EB-5 immigrants, which is a special visa class where people have to, I think, put either $500,000 or a million dollars into effectively a holding company in the U.S. and are given a green card. It's essentially a buying citizenship scheme that Donald Trump has actually worked to expand. So yeah, I think in the discussion about immigration, which is a topic for another time, the Asian impact on American workers is actually vastly under discussed. Next, let's see. Colin Wood and Vosh Nessie, you might not grant everything in the question. I'm not sure, but they said, given that African-Americans are more likely to commit crime, why should we not assume that they're more likely to be unfit jurors? Oh my God. Destiny, do you wanna take like the eight answers to that or? So because black people are more likely to commit crime, we have like an entire vitting process for jurors. And also whether or not you've committed a crime, I don't even know what type of jury that factors into it. Just because some group might have a higher proclivity towards something else, doesn't mean that you can't interview said group and screen out bad applicants or whatever for, whether it's a job or a jury selection or anything else. I don't understand that. You know what was the highest predisposition towards violent crime? Men by an unfathomable margin. So if we wanna go down that line, we don't want men in juries, obviously, because they're too irrational. Yeah, for any violent crime case, of course. We don't want them as judges. We don't want them as politicians because they're clearly not capable of controlling themselves. Ultimately, the point of processes like judicial review or of literally any job hiring process or of elections is to suss out whether or not a person is a legitimate candidate for that position. And in the case of that judicial striking, that study that I mentioned, they accounted for factors such as that, criminality, economic background, what have you. Which means the only thing remaining was racial bias. Yeah, if you really wanted to be biased in a system and get rid of all the bad applicants then you would focus on age and you'd focus on sex. So like young people between the ages of probably like 14 and 32 or whatever. And then men, if you get rid of that, you're like 99% of like violent offenders are hitting that group right there. What about blacks? Well, you don't need to. We don't even know. So you can stare at you like men, but not blacks. But not blacks. Wait, what? I'm not saying, first of all, no, no, no. If you want a predictor for violent crime, going with men, getting rid of all men is gonna be way better than getting rid of all blacks. Wait, but could black women don't commit much crime? What? Violent crime compared to like young white men? No. Compared to white women? Yeah, when you control for economic factors. Oh, no, not that. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. When you can, yes, when you control for stuff like poverty, the, you know, the very basic tier one stuff a criminologist would learn in their sleep. Poor white people commit less crime than the last black people. That's been proven. Wait, what? I'll, I'll try to study it for you. Wait, the, is this the- The image from that John trying to make? The one image from the one city? Isn't the John trying? Yeah. That wasn't a real... Well, that's not an argument, so. Wait, it wasn't real. Let's just say that. No, it wasn't. It was an out of context graph that was made by lying about the sources of the data and pulling together a bunch of different supposed correlations with no understanding. James, James, the moderator can, can... I'll see you. You might as well just draw a graph in MS Paint and be like, here we go. Okay, so we'll, we'll give a Vajdesi last word on that one. Oh yeah. Oh yeah, wait, you said, oh, last word. Oh, real quick, I just wanted to address something earlier. James mentioned the fact that the majority of Chinese immigrants are EB-5 immigrants. That's not true. Apparently there is less than 7,000 of those people that have those EB-5 immigration things, those visas compared to, in 2017 alone, we had 2.9 million Chinese immigrants. So, unless you're trying to make... That's about 50%, let's say. Next up, Brenton Langell, thanks for your question, said the Washington State study proves cops hesitate, quote, when they know they're being watched, unquote, and white is easier to see, so it would speed reaction time in a lab. Ooh, something that was really funny that we didn't even get to talk about. One of the largest analyses of over 100 million stops in the United States show that black people were less likely to be racially profiled after dark when it's harder to determine if there's a white person or a black person driving a car. I thought that was very interesting, over 100 million stops they analyzed. Let's give, hold on one second, hold on, I do want to give... After sundown, the disparity crops. I want to give, but I want to give Striker and also give you a chance to respond to both Destiny's Point and the Super Chat. Hold on a second. I was digging up the study, this study that shows that poor whites are less likely to be charged with serious crimes and go to prison than wealthy blacks. So I tell you to look at that. Yeah, we'll just say that when it's dark out, people, they're less likely to be profiled. To be stopped, to be, what is the argument here? That racial disparities and between stopping rates, between white people and black people tends to go down once it gets later on in the night. That when you control for time of stop, which makes it seem like people might be profiling each other based just on how they look rather than any other factor related to a stop. Yeah, I mean, it's also harder to see things like, what are common reasons for stops? Like vehicle equipment issues, right? Which is a common reason for stop. These are things that are harder to see. So yeah, I've not... So why would the disparity go down? The disparity in race? Yeah, you would expect it to... Sorry? You'd expect it to be the same unless you think that... What's his point that black people and white people, there's less disparity at night? That the cops are racially profiling? That the disparity goes down after you can't determine the race of the driver? Also, I'm super curious what goes on in your car that's harder to see at night? Like pale lights going out or harder to notice at night? Are you saying that what's your argument? That white cops can't see black people at night? What is your argument? Wait, wait, wait, why do you keep specifying the race of the cops? We've never made that claim. Because that's what the actual controversy going on is. No, it's not. I want to give James a chance to respond. Yeah, no, the idea that it's more difficult to see a black person at night, these things are... Wait, do you think that's not true? Hold on, no, wait, do you think that's not true? Do you think it's equally easy to see a white person or a black person at night? What if they smile at you? You can't discern their race in the dark. We have striker and expert identitarian here that's more obsessed with identity politics than any gay white liberal I've ever met in my entire life. Holy shit. That's because the left stole identity politics from the right. I'm not a conservative. I'm an identitarian. Damn, at least you admit that it wasn't a foundation. The left stole identity politics from the Nazis. You sound like a liberal to me, buddy. I just want it on the record for my two probably fucking race realists in the argument, which is the funniest part here. Are you guys going to tell me that it's just as easy at night to discern race in a car between a white person and a black person? No, I'm saying that obsessing over the race in the case of a police stop... No, I'm just asking. Wait, wait, wait, hold on. I'm filibustering this entire debate until James also answers that question. Is it just as easy to see a black and a white person at night in a car as to what you're doing today? I'm saying that if we're talking about police stops, there are so many different factors that go into the decision to stop someone. Okay, wait, wait, wait, wait, that's one. I'm going to ask one more time, okay? Is it justice? Yeah, don't get paternal with me, Destiny. Like this idea, and again, you guys do this thing where you get this study and you expect us to take it at face value that you are one, accurately representing the data. Just asking you a question. Not editorializing. No, because you guys are bringing up these studies that we have not seen, right? So we have no way of verifying whether you're saying what you're saying is true or not. So I'm not going to respond to you. Okay, I'm going to ask a third one. I'm not going to get that question. You can't see black people at night. Yeah, can you see the difference between a black and a white person in a car at night just as easy as you can during the day or is it a little bit harder at night? Does your car disappear too? Like, give me one. You have a headlight? I mean, yes, you can see people. And I would, I mean, this idea, I'm going to ask a fourth time. Can you tell the difference at night just as easily between a black or a white person driving a car? Would you drive a car? Sure. Yes, sure. Okay, cool, that's all I want to hear. All right, all right, that's yeah, we got what we can out of that. Next, thanks for your question. By the way, do want to remind everybody the links of the speakers are in the description in case you did not know that. And next, we have a question from Rodney Fahlberg asks, to all the speakers, why should lay people accept what you say on these topics? You all act like you are experts, but none of you are experts. Let's see, none of you have done professional studies, aren't economists, historians, or experts in any way? Well, as part of getting my degree in sociology, I actually had to learn the exact same statistical inference skills that are necessary to participate in the multivariate regressive analysis that we usually use to determine and isolate certain social factors. So I would, I mean, I don't have like an MA or anything, but I would argue pretty confidently that I do have some degree of, you know, familiarity with this. But if you want, like, you don't need a degree to understand any of these studies. If you go into the methodology, the actual math they use, it gets pretty complicated. Some of it's above my pay grade as well. But when it comes to actually understanding, like the arguments being made, it's pretty easy to do. And nothing that Destiny and I have done here has deviated at all from very simple, very commonly held criminological perspectives on the criminal justice system. We haven't done any wacky like high IQ 40 chest shit for this. I would also like to say that like the fact that you are not familiar with any of these studies is really disappointing. These are page one J store, Google, fucking academic, whatever bullshit you wanna look at. Like these are the first things that come up. It seems like you would have like a prepared response to at least like the easiest data to find. None of these are like super varied or super difficult. Like these are all like the mainstream, widespread academic point of view. I mean, at least also I can respect that you tried to say that all of academia is fake to try to get off of it since you knew that you couldn't count it. No, you're mischaracterizing me again, Dusty. That's not what I'm saying. What you are doing, and this actually speaks to the question here, is that not only, no, not only are people, the audience, being expected to believe their characterizations of studies at face value, which is in and of itself a problem. Secondly, we are being held to their characterizations of a study that hasn't been verified. We have not verified or seen these. So the idea that reality as you presented as you distill from a study you select is more valid than the factual. I mean, you like to say that studies are only valid and that the crime statistics that crime statistics aren't valid. No, I mean, these crime statistics, these are from the FBI. These are from from New York city. Regardless of what we're talking about, all of these statistics we have presented are you can look them up, right? A crime statistic. Maybe I can use your characterization of a study that's your interpretation. Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe easier. Let me jump in here on sociology as a fucking discipline. Yeah, I know. It's the Jews, brother, they're all over the years. No, go look up Alan Sokol. S-O-K-A-L, sociology. We shouldn't have to look them up. They should have done it for this debate. That was your job. Sociology is a fake science. People are, academics, real academics are constantly laughing because they send in bogus studies and they always publish them in their journals. Sociology is a load of horseshit. This Marxism. Move on, unless if it's an answer for the actual question. I just want to talk about sociology for the audience. So studies are like meals, okay? That's what we're asking. You're giving a single ingredients, okay? To say that a stat and a study are the same thing just isn't how any of this works. Studies incorporate wide varieties of stats into what they, into their entire project. And then add their ideology to it. So that two plus two equals five. I just want to say this is an ideology. I mean like, when you say add an ideology, I mean every study is done with some end in mind. Unless you want to go like really deep, maybe James here can have a conversation on instrumentalism or something. If you want to talk about like the philosophy of doing this study. In the absence of any, so can a person who's a race realist be an academic nowadays? Yeah, I just, wait, wait, wait, hold on. I just want to get fired. So if my opinion gets you fired from academia, then how am I supposed to have the, really quickly. How can we talk about physics when they're firing on the planet? There's, oh no. Okay, Destiny has the last word on this one. All right, I'm sorry. We have to do that. I have to do that. You have to keep going. Discipline was attacked. If you hadn't got a chance to respond to it, I'll give you a quick response. One sentence, without evidence that a study's methodology is flawed, claiming it is flawed is the definition of feels over reels. We showed you all kinds of studies and you guys just ignored them. All kinds. All kinds of data. All kinds of studies, you guys just. S.H., thanks for your question said, bad moderation, appreciate that. We keep our critics close though. So leave them alone mods. And I will, I appreciate the accountability. Manchester police, thanks for your question said, systematic systems that govern everything from jury bias to politicians, choices are not able to affect academic studies. The systematic powers of whitey cannot enter the university door. What? I don't think, I don't think that was an argument. Yeah. So you can probably move to the next one if you'd like to. Next up, I didn't understand it. Let's see. Quote, Brady Constance, thanks for your question says, color of crime, quote unquote, there is a, there is little bias because victim surveys show that the color of the criminal in a violent act and the federal data is a close. A close? It is close. I think you mean it is close. Yeah, no, that is a, that is well-established. I think they actually conceded that point very early on that blacks do commit more crime than whites at an extremely disproportionate rate. But to answer, I think what that previous super chatter was getting at it in terms of bias in academia, I mean, this is something that is worth discussing. Let's get, let's, I don't know if I wanna, it's this one, Michael, for a long time. It was- The specificities, right? It was- Also, nobody conceded that point. It was never debated. It was never talked about. I don't remember. I do remember you did admit that blacks commit more crime than whites. Yeah, they did admit that. We're not conceding or admitting that. That's like a fact that we all agree on. It's like, it's not a concession. Like, do you think the sun is out in the day? Well, your argument is- Oh, it is. You conceded that. Black people commit more crime, but somehow the fact that they go to prison at higher rates and have all these issues with jurors- I feel the same way about men. Men commit more crime- Striker, look up the word disproportionate. It'll help you for your next debate, okay? Next up, Matthew Steele. Thanks for your question. This is for Striker and Alsup. Ask, do you think the most important ideal virtue in the US is improving human life or making money? And definitely have to give them the last word on this. Go ahead, Alsup and Sir Derek. I'll say it's very clear. It's about improving the human condition and human life. It's not about money. Money, some people say time is money, but I say money is time. People need more leisure time. They need workers' rights. We need to fight for the working people, especially the white working people who are under siege from both the right and the left. That's why you should fucking join with us if you're in that situation. He was sent to us. You are hated for your race. And additionally, you have no rights because of your class. So this is something that we believe. We're not conservatives. We are nationalists and we are third-positionists. So fuck the communists and fuck the capitalists. Next, John L. 1319, appreciate your question. Said, can you ask who the white leaders are since us black people always need to be led? This is to the nationalist guys. How about Louis Farrakhan? How about various historical figures? I mean, is Louis Farrakhan a black community leader? I mean, what's the answer to that? We have to keep, to be fair, I have to give him the last word. Mecca Wing Zero, thanks for your question for both sides. Asking, do you believe the criminal justice system is sexist due to the overwhelming majority of arrests being men? Yeah, well, yeah, oh yeah, yeah, yeah. That's been proven. Actually, we might even have that in our own data that when you control for all other factors, past convictions, criminal history, all of that stuff that men do receive worse sentences, especially when it comes, I think, from departure from the guidelines than women do. Yeah, way worse, like judges, because they think men are more threatening, which you could argue they are, but obviously the disproportionate representation bears out, yeah. Just like with blacks. Oh, just like with blacks, it's disproportionate. Thanks. He agrees again. Hey! Hey, you guys, I'm black. Blacks are disproportionately. Another concession. Because they're disproportionately violent, just like men are. Wait, that statement was actually correct. They are disproportionately violent. That is true. They're also disproportionately violent. Thank you, that's it. Game over. We're not arguing about whether they're disproportionately violent. We're arguing whether they're disproportionately violent. So you guys are arguing like the Jared Taylor position? We're arguing like the position that was listed in the mail. Maybe your caretaker should have read it to you if we're talking about coming into this. Next, Mecca Wings, well, we got that one. Rugal Middall quotes Vash saying, if blacks move to Africa to be among blacks, that's fine, same with whites, and wherever they want to move to, unquote. So Africa for Africans confirmed? No, everywhere for whoever wants to go there. I don't know. Who makes that decision? I wait. Different countries out of control of their own immigration policy. We're arguing, but we're arguing broadly what my ethical principle is. And what I'm saying is, I think it's nice when individuals get to move to whatever part of the world they'd like to move in. We get one life, there's one planet. There are a lot of beautiful things to see, beautiful people to meet. I think it's nice that people should be able to travel the world, experience what they wish to experience. Yeah, that's okay. There's a lot of hope. A few years ago, that shows that not a single country in the world has a majority that supports open borders. Damn it, not a single country in the world. Are you kidding? Not a single country in the world is anarcho- Not a single majority in the world of borders. You've hit it. The capital support open borders. It's almost like... As you like to quote Kato Institute Studies on immigration, why are we allowing him to just completely... Wait, it's almost like I'm an anarchist and there are no giant anarchists like anarchist, syndicalist, like... That's because anarchism is just a political... It's almost like I have political ideals. For mentally ill people, like you. That haven't happened yet. That's what anarchism is. It's a philosophy for mentally ill rich kids. It's like a jump in here. You've been very stable this debate. You've been putting your best foot forward for your... You're not making a good argument for your study. I think when we have the support, people walk close borders all over the world. If I was also, but be pretty mad, I got paired up with you, to be honest. No, I mean, that the DNC is not gonna work. To be fair, at some point, I got to give Vosh the last word because it was an objection toward him. Well, if I could make a statement on this. I think it is very interesting that the anarchist position on open borders and open migration is the exact same as global capital. That should tell you something. Secondly, Vosh's position on the ethics of open migration, free movement of people, is it does not hold any regard for the will of the people in the countries that are being immigrated to. Right? So since I'm getting the last word here, I'm the desire of the people from the third world. But it doesn't take into account the wishes of the people, say in Europe, or say in the United States, who time and time again, in polling, expressed that they are opposed to immigration. They've had enough. Blacks in South Africa don't want more. So several things. First of all, what he just said is untrue vis-a-vis immigration data. It's more complicated than he's making it out to be. Second of all, I'm pretty sure that capitalists don't generally support the abolition of private property. Maybe they've changed it. Maybe Goldman Sachs is pushing for that. Maybe they've moved it to people. And third of all, when I'm making moral prescriptions, I can make them with regards to the fact that there are people in different countries who disagree with me. For example, I don't think that raping and enslaving women is okay. But the people in Saudi Arabia probably have some different views on me with regards to that particular gendered interaction. And to have somebody say, well, that's not very nice to the Saudi Arabian people. It doesn't really land home with me. My moral principles exist opposite whatever weird demographic polling I can bring up to justify any conceit. Who the fuck are you to tell Saudis how to live? I've got to give them the last word. Who the fuck are you? Both is our thing to your question. Said to all four, do you love black people? Well, yes. If I could take this first. And I think that what we are doing, what the one sentence- They have the real compassionate position towards black people. The position that Sreika and our advocating for actually gives agency to blacks and to others. And what Vaus just said, right there, is actually very illuminating in that he is attempting to enforce his morality, Vaus, you got to stop being a child here. Liberal colonialist. He's attempting to, yeah, exactly. To impart his liberal colonialist mindset on everyone across the world, on Saudi Arabians, on blacks. He's attempting to ascribe his own liberal values onto these other people. This is a very important point. And it speaks to- He's trying to skip one. It speaks to why- This has nothing to do with loving black people. It speaks to why, yes, it does. Because it speaks to why you, despite claiming that there is institutional bias and racism in this system, then pivot away and run away from the discussion of what to do about it and are afraid of the answer that would remove the possibility of white oppression or white bias from impacting blacks, which is having two separate systems, right? So you are, it's liberal colonialism at its finest. What Saudi Arabians do in Saudi Arabia is they love black people. They don't, because they don't, they don't love black people. That's their crippling flaw. That's their- You want to control black people. They don't love black people. It's fine to make fun of them like you do with Jesse Lee Peterson. That's another thing. Jesse, you want to make fun of your coon. That's a good one. Whoa! All right, we are not- First of all, you were the one earlier that claimed to have broken figures. You literally used that expression to make some kind of circus animal. For real, we're not, like, we're not gonna get the channel in trouble. Don't say anything like that again. I don't think they love black people very much. I meant it in a certain context, though. I don't give a certain context. He was using the mean version of all the time. Like, don't do it again. All right. So, next one. Appreciate your question. This one comes in from, the red elephants said, let's see. They said, blacks are more likely to be charged longer for drugs because they're more likely to sell in the open and more likely to have a previous criminal history. There are many studies that conclude this. Okay, yeah, so- You don't need a length one. I'm sorry, hold on. Sorry, I hear this time so many times. All these researchers do all of these studies on all of this crime-related stuff. And you think that none of them, not a single one thought, I wonder if past convictions might have been the difference here. Nobody controlled for that. They clearly do. They explicitly do in every study that Vajranai brought to this conversation. The fact that you think you've got some massive gotcha by asking one of literally the most obvious fucking questions of all time, I think is very telling of your position. Yeah, I also wanna say that I've looked over these data points specifically. And while it is true that there are corollary factors like black people are more likely to sell in the open and black people are more likely to smoke marijuana in public rather than in private, these statistical factors accounted for a very small percentage deviation from their actual arrest rate, whereas they're arrested four times as often. So you can't just prove like this is a correlative factor, that's a correlative factor. You have to prove it accounts for a four times discrepancy, which in the case of that data, and I know because I've looked at those studies, it most certainly does not. Next up, thanks for your, forgive me, did we get a response from both sides? Or wait, that was actually a way that was targeting Destiny Bosch will give them the last word on that one. Matthew Steele, thanks for your question. Striker and also also said, do you think that if Black Lives Matter protesters carried AR-15s while they peacefully protested that their second amendment rights would be respected by police? Yes, this happened last month where Black Lives Matter, I don't know if they were officially BLM, but a group of armed black protesters escorted a on state property, by the way. And I believe it was Michigan. They had an armed demonstration and they were unmolested by law enforcement. Right, and also like the new black panthers. Oh my God, you need a study to prove what you're seeing in front of your eyes. The new black panthers have armed demonstrations all the time and they're not fucking stopped by the police. So I mean, the new black panthers are actually considered by Zionist groups to be a hate group, quote unquote, by the ADL. So they're allowed to carry their guns in public. The BLM group you're referring to was actually a group of paid actors who were evoking the aesthetic of BLM. They did a big apology tour on Twitter for it because they were getting stolen valor. I need a study for that. How about for data? How about the fact that I like to pick up the black panthers when it comes to weapons control, when the only time the NRA historically supported more gun control was when the black panthers were marching in the 60s. No, no, no, there are other factors, bro. There are other factors, bro. The NRA currently supports increased gun control in terms of background checks and bump stocks. So that's a lie. Right. Wait, generally, they passed massive gun control education. Ronald Reagan, no. His studies are right. His act goes to right. Your studies are wrong. Your past gun control legislation. You're wrong. I mean, you're wrong. The NRA currently supports increased gun control in terms of universal background checks and bump stocks, which they supported two years ago. Then the argument would be that they supported disproportionate gun control with regards to BLM. To be fair, that's not the argument you made. What you exactly said was the only time they supported gun control was when it was black. That's what destiny said. Do all white people look the same to you? Oh, OK. Well, black people. That's what I thought. The NRA is obsessed with having black spokesmen and black members and all that stuff. They also support expanding gun rights to minorities. And they have programs dedicated to that. That's the NRA. So this is just ridiculous, like made up. Well, we have to find some data on it, then talk about that. OK. Yeah, about go on the NRA website and look up all the black people they have fucking at their field. They put black people on their website. There can't be any racial bias. Well, it clearly shows that they at least aren't against black people having guns as long as it's legal. The problem is that black people. Maybe they're OK with black conservatives having guns, but they weren't OK with black socialists having guns. I think you might be confusing that for how the FBI and the police were investigating Shahamish, where the white people came out to defend them. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. What are you talking about? For black rioters. You might be confusing it for that. Do you think saying, I think you might be talking about, is this like a gateway to a non-sequitur? They harass white people. Having a gun in this country as a white man with an opinion is basically demanding that the government come after you. Wait, I have a gun. Multiple guns. And I have very strong opinions. You support the system, though. That's the difference. By being anti-capitalist? Wait, is he an anarchalist or whatever? Or is he a anarchalist? He is a capitalist who pretends to be a capitalist. This is the same Nozbo argument every time. Even if you're anti-capital, anti-private property, anti-everything, if you support immigration, it automatically makes you a capitalist. That's because you have to say, that she doesn't care about race. You and the Cato Institute have the same opinion on it. Let's go back to the original question. So the original question, though, I can give you the last word if you'd like to, which that original question was from Matthew Steele asking about black protesters or BLM protesters with their AR-15s. And it sounds like you said that you think that they would be respected by police if you feel good about that. One last thing, do you think if white people were rioting, burning down cities, killing people, shooting police officers, do you really think it would be allowed to go on? Oh, you didn't see that. Wait, how long wait? Wasn't it in Bournemouth? Two federal police shot by BLM in Los Angeles. If a group of white people were behaving that way, they would put the army on the streets. Remember, we know this will be true because we saw them in Charlottesville. And you're wrong. What are you talking about? Charlottesville, where were the police at? Do you know who started the riot? Do you know who started it? Well, we're not interested in Charlottesville conspiracy theories, dude. Just hold on. Okay, everybody on mute. Reset for a second. Okay, so that last question was on the AR-15s. It's okay. I appreciate everybody's passion. So we're just coming back to it now. The AR-15s, Black Lives Matter, if they were carrying the AR-15s, I think we got way past that. We're on something totally new now. I think black people should be able to have guns. It's cool. Black Panther Party was cool. Yeah, that's my answer. Next, well, the question though, originally for Stryker and also, if you guys want, the last word is yours. Yeah, I think you can look at the treatment of white peaceful political protesters. And you will see, exactly, and you will see that the agitation, in the case of Charlottesville, being a great example, agitation came from the left. It came from Antifa. And what was the end result of that? It was dozens, I think, with Ram and everyone else, it doesn't have to do with the question. We are comparing apples to apples here. When white people went to peacefully demonstrate, we got cracked down by both the local cops and the anarchists, and there was a Black Lives Matter contingent there. None of them went to prison. This is just like- A lot of white nationalists did. BLM protest today, the National Guard was called. Congratulations. I don't know what you're talking about. And how many arrests were made? Our dear moderator asks a simple question, and you're like, well, the 1982 lynching of the black man, the Ku Klux Klan was actually not the person who did it, you know? You're just getting nervous. You're just getting nervous because we're getting a little bit nervous. Talk about the actual issue, ever. Let's go to the- So this question is an interesting one. James Bond, thanks for your question asked. They said, police spend more time in violent areas, and thus, isn't it more likely that they would find other crime in these violent areas? Yes, it's been accounted for. That is definitely true. It is also literally the first thing these people account for when they're conducting these studies. Let's give, and we'll give Eric and also the last word. I mean, no amount of sociology can talk away the fact that there's more dead bodies showing up in black neighborhoods. This is that simple. No one can explain it though. Well, here's the thing. If there's more dead bodies showing up in your neighborhood because of homicide, then it's very obvious that more people in your neighborhood are gonna go away to prison and get the death penalty. This is- I mean, you're just defending anti-intellectualism. Like, fuck the data, fuck analysis. It's not anti-intellectualism to lie. Like, I mean, you're lying. Intuition says- If you go outside right now and you would've looked across your city, okay? The horizon is flat, all right? Now I'm just saying, I've been in airplanes where I've never seen curvature view. That's true. And I've looked with my own eyes, okay? Well, I love how the flat, the people who are the flat earthers, the people that are ideologues here that are doing this out of a religious belief are people like you who, no matter what data I show you, you guys will never take the racialist position. No matter what data we show you. So what is the point of this? You have an ideology. You have a fixed religious belief in the equality of all races. That we support with data. It's a belief that's wrong. It's a belief that's wrong. The Chinese have already just proven it in their universities because they don't have the political pressures to give the system what it wants. And show the studies. The official ideology of the United States of America is anti-racism. They're laying Black Lives Matter banners- Every question from a moderator goes the same way. Outside the U.S. Embassy in Asia. So give me a break. That's the official ideology of the U.S. government. You push it. Every single time you talk, you go on the weirdest tangent. You know, I've never been killed by a Black man. I don't know. The evidence is feeling pretty strong. Do Black people murder anyone? I mean, I've never seen a murder. True. I think a really important question that Stryker needs to address is, why do you believe that white people were created by Yakub? True. Why? Because hold on, because if Vashir agrees with some Kato studies, which means he subscribes to all their ideologies and the only people that you could support that are supporting your arguments are fucking nation of Islam people. I believe white people are people, Stryker. I want to hear you talk about Yakub and all of the creation of people white people. She's corny. If he's corny. Okay, one last time. I want to give you guys the last word, Stryker and James. If these corny little gotchas are going to be the game, I could just bring up the fact that both of you are admitting that blacks are more violent and committing more crime and say, well, that's actually, Black people do commit more crime in the United States than white people at the moment. And they're afraid of it. Yeah, I don't want to say that. And they're afraid of talking about solutions. Got it. I think that's the most salient point here. To be fair, I do have to give the last word to Stryker and James. Okay. No, I think, you know, you do little gotcha jokes about how many whites are killed by blacks. Well, the FBI data shows us that a white person is 27 times as likely to be killed by a black than a black is to be killed by a white. That is according to FBI data. So, I mean, all no analysis, just individual data points that you do not tie together with analysis. Data is irrelevant. Do you need data as irrelevant? That is so fantastic, Stryker. I appreciate it being open. You're saying that data doesn't matter if it doesn't have some sociology. No, you're not providing data. You're providing stats out of context. The statistics are black crime or on paper. They're well known. What context minimizes the fact that whites are 27 times likely to be killed by a black person? Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Can I appeal to the moderator? I've got one sec. It's, hold on. Every time you ask a question, they take it to like pull out their little black book and start responding like deciding the same fucking argument. Can we actually like respond to the questions the Super Chatters are asking? Let's see, so what I have to do is I have to give Stryker and also the last word and then we got to go to this next question. I wonder if it'll be about the question. Yeah, well, in the original question, the original question, were we on the, this wasn't on the AR-15s for Black Lives Matter, was it? Literally no one knows right now, James. You're going to have to find it because these guys sure as fuck aren't responding to the question. Yeah, well, according to you guys, data is irrelevant. We don't respond with the response you want that our response is somehow invalid. Yeah, that's not how it works. We have the data, we have the crime rates, we have the stats, we have them broken down by race and you guys just snark about it and just pretend it's not happening. It's not real. We have 1350, we're not owned, we're not owned, we have 1350. But it's 1350 real, is it? Is it? Now he's arguing for it. Snarking about it doesn't mean that black people don't commit far more interracial crime than the reverse. So what is, what are you laughing at? I feel like you literally came to this debate and like you have a folder titled like research for debate and it's full of like rage comics right now. Like that's what you call it. Right, I mean, you're not even addressing what we're saying. I mean, this is just, you're just trying to, you're not addressing the super chat. All right, all right, let's, next. Jonathan Why Woo, let's see. Do we, did you feel like the, I can give you the last word if you, if you feel like you didn't have it there because I know that was kind of an interchange. Hey, go ahead, it's fine. Move on to the next one. Jonathan Why Woo, thanks for your question, said our striker and also uncomfortable but me and my Han Chinese ancestry are every bit as American as they are. I don't really care. I mean, is that, is that some gotcha for some like paleo con? I don't give a shit. I say good for the Chinese. The Han race is, is ascendant. I applaud them. It's a very consistent civilization. I think that the Chinese government is actually fighting for its own race and its own race's existence. And I think that's why they will eventually destroy America in an international conflict, whether passive, cold or hot. And this man sending in that super chat will renounce his American citizenship and go live in a prosperous China. I mean, that's just how it is. I'm glad he has another country to go to. Okay. White people don't have a place to go after this. I thought we have all of Europe. I thought that Europe was open. Yeah, and look at the demographics there. Good. And then we'll do it to China too, baby. We'll import the third world into China too. No one will be safe. They're gonna eat you. We'll find your great-grandparent's fucking bedrooms and we'll import the third world into there too, okay? You said it. That's the third dream. Right. Mascalf, Mascalf. They can't, but the funny thing is, the funny thing is they're so, they're so addled, they don't know I'm making a joke. They actually think that's what we believe. They can't actually tell. Every comment you make is the nervous Wojak with the smiling mask. Like, that's every stupid joke we make. So it's hard to tell. Yeah, I mean, you want to talk about comics. That's like the ha-ha, he didn't know that I was pretending to be retarded. It's like, all right. Yeah, got to move, got to move on. I'll give you guys the last word because that one was correct. They do, they're admitting it. They think that's actually, that's how like black and white it is. It's like a child's view of politics. Well, if they look at the data point that they have. Yeah, these guys are so stupid for taking us out of here. They're data point. Vash, bad, destiny, bad, frowny face. I have here, this is- You took me at my word. Ha-ha-ha. Let's- I feel like this is like a massive Turing test. Like, people put a bunch of Markov chains together and Stryker's entire personality was generated off of 4chan posts. He's like an amalgamation of every stupid fucking meme on that fucking board. Destiny, why do you keep doubling down in personal attacks and refuting- This guy literally called both of us faggots multiple times and we're the ones making- That wasn't a personal attack. Aren't you proud to be LGBT? What are you talking about, dude? Are you serious? Are you LGBT or not? Let's, let's, we've got a question from insane hermit says, do Destiny and Vash not allow blacks to separate because they want continuous race war and exploiting of whitey? This is what I mean, like these people's perceptions of our beliefs are fucking insane. What are you talking about? Well, so the clear answer is, I don't think that the combination of blacks and whites would lead to a perpetual race war. I mean, if black people and white people want to go off and like make their own little, like you can go move in with white friends at a house or you can go move in with black friends at a house or you can go to another country, I guess, if you want. But no, I mean, I don't think either of us are interested in enforcing some racial separation of like stores or properties or something like that. I don't think there's going to be a perpetual race war as a result of that. Wait, it was for a while, we can't do every eight minutes. I had the last word on that. So you can shut the fuck up. I have the last word actually. Oh, sorry, Vasha, go ahead. Yeah, all I want to say is, yeah, people should be able to live with one. That's it. That's it. It's so simple. I don't want to force anyone together or anyone apart. I just don't want people to be able to discriminate based on race. It's very simple. Next, just watch one to four. This, we've only got maybe time for another one or two. I think one of you guys is on the East Coast, right? So we just watched one to four. Thanks for your question. Said, Destiny, stop and frisk served as a deterrent, not an illegal gun confiscation program. That's why, quote, only about 750 guns, unquote, were found, but gun crime went down. That's a really interesting question because I literally, we need to talk about this. I had a study from 2017 called to stop and frisk a deter crime, evidence from the aftermath of Floyd v. City of New York. And interestingly enough, it didn't. Gotcha. Zephyr, let's see. Says, Zephyr says, Striker, don't talk about blacks wanting separation. We don't want that crap. Don't you dare try to speak for us. Striker, do you- I will give you this. I am just talking about black people. I know that I talked to historical black leaders, what they wanted, Marcus Garvey. You can look at Malcolm, the greatest black men in American history. Many of them agree with my position on this, okay? The Black Panther Party, for example, they were very, very skeptical of the weather underground, even though the weather underground, which is all Jewish and all liberals, white liberals, wealthy white liberals and Jews were made up the weather underground. They invented the concept almost of white privilege. They had these struggle sessions and atoning for your privilege and things like that. The Black Panthers before that were aligned with the Young Patriot Organization, which was an unapologetically white working class movement of Southerners who use the Confederate flag and you can find pictures online of young patriots who were unapologetic, racialists basically, they were Dixie nationalists with Black Panthers and their flags are together. So black people and white people historically have come together with this point of view to fight the system together, okay? These guys, on the other hand, white liberals, they don't have any interaction with black people. I mean, maybe this is one of those like, maybe a black exception, but black people don't like white liberals. When they see white liberals move, when white liberals move into their neighborhoods, they understand that their neighborhood's about to get gentrified. When they see Whole Foods open up, they understand that means the rent is gonna go up. So I'm just saying, like, let's talk to black people about this, but this is an exception to the rule, but I noticed one thing. You didn't have any kind words for Destiny and Vash. He just said, hey, you don't speak for me either, which is fine, I don't pretend to, they do. I don't, wait, I don't, wait, wait, wait, I don't give a fuck if- I don't give a fuck if black people agree with the arguments that I make because I don't base the legitimacy of my arguments on a racialist perspective of subjective truth. I argue for what I argue because I think it's correct because I think it's right. But these policies you support are going to impact black people. Everyone, because I think my ethics are applicable. If you pull police out of the ghetto, black people will die by the hundreds. In fact, if I was an unironic white supremacist, I would agree and amplify with you. Oh, you're gonna pull police out of black neighborhoods or less of police- Wait, wait, did I say that? Police- I'm gonna talk about pulling police out of black neighborhoods. Aren't you an anarchist? You don't believe it? Wait, was he an anarchist or a liberal? Which one, Striker? Does he change like- Good question. Based on what you're talking about. There's a lot of fluency there. So are you an anarchist or a liberal, Vosh? Do you support defunding the police? I mean, wait, is defunding the police the same as pulling police out of black neighborhoods? Well, if the police have no money, who's gonna police them? I didn't say, do you think defund means zero money? That would be abolished. That's what the people protesting are saying. Yes, if we don't want police, we want to abolish- That's an anarchist position. Abolish the police means zero money. Defund the police means take away their budgets. Right, well, are the police gonna do it as like a weekend volunteer thing if you defund them? Are you sure you're equipped to have that? Maybe this could be the next conversation. I don't think any of the talking points to anything I do is under Vosh, please. Well, okay, so the actual response is, in case you're wondering, defund the police usually refers to allocating different portions of the police budget to other services that things that the police should be involved in. So for instance, you'd be like a mentally ill guy walking down the street and screaming. It's probably shouldn't be the police that are called in, which probably would be somebody especially equipped to deal with special forces. Well, that's gonna affect black people. That's what defund the police means. Don't say, all right, because you didn't know that five seconds before I explained it to you. Black people's lives and you see how the police now they have responding to right now explaining what it meant to you completely didn't know. I know you wanna move on to the next point. The murder rate goes sky high as soon as police keep a hands-off position. And that's good thing, none of us are talking about that. Cool, we all agree on that. Let's see, I'm trying to remember who's the original question for. Okay, so Striker and also the original objection was to you guys, if you guys wanna respond, you can. Yeah, I would just like to make the point when he says that he doesn't want Striker or I speaking for black people, that's fine. Neither of us are claiming to. What we are proposing is a solution though that would be, that has been endorsed by black leaders in the past and would be preferential or would result in a better situation for blacks. And I would also make the point that this does not only apply to criminal justice, but this applies to economics as well. We saw the study recently of Amazon Workplaces and this was released that the more racially diverse in Amazon Workplace is. This is not true. I went over this data on stream, everything you're about to say is completely misinformation. You did your study about this, I'm sure. Amazon did its own study. No, I just, wait, wait, wait, no, no, no. I didn't do my own study. I just looked it there because Amazon's internal data found that more diverse workplaces are less likely to unionize. And so if you're interested in the well-being of blacks and economic well-being as a part of that, then, right, well, obviously. He isn't. He wants to impose his own gay liberalism on other people and what don't like. You're the same gay liberalism. Oh, God. He's basically an imperialist, actually. He's a gay imperialist. He has some, you basically, yes. Liberal, gay, imperious, liberal. Yep. Wait, have they called me Jewish this debate or is that another debate? I'm not calling you Jewish, but you are fulfilling their neoconagency. Hey, just to clear it up. I want to impose my world view, my European oriented world view, which is what liberalism is. So I went over this because I saw. On people that don't want it around the world. That's what you said. You don't care. Just so you know, I just want you to know, when you grandstand like that, you come off as pathetic as any motherfucker who you fucking shit owe someone. You don't care what people of color think about your god-awful world view. If you cared what people of color think, you wouldn't be citing like incredibly niche positions inside their community. You think all black people are represented by the nation of Islam? What a stupid point. What do you think black people think of transgenderism while they're stupid niche? You want to talk niche issues. That's what you guys think. He actually can't stick to a topic. Wait, I'm sorry, moderator, if I may. I just because out of the responsibility to the audience. So I didn't like do a study on that Amazon article. I just read the article, which Vincent James, who was the person who I saw that through, didn't bother to do. The racial diversity was one of 12 characteristics associated with being less likely to unionize. And one of the reasons that was posited is because whole foods with greater racial diversity tend to be in larger cities, which have larger amounts of racial diversity and larger cities tended to have, you guessed it, higher minimum wages, which means that there was less of an economic incentive for those groups to unionize. In fact, a follow-up study that I looked at showed that racial minorities were actually more likely to push for unionization in many industries. So everything that he just said about that was completely wrong. Again, all I had to do was look like past that. Well, that's fine, but actually, I actually have a study. Hold on. I want to... We're at a lot of points, so we've got a... We're not fully lying about what's going on. Then come back. We've put studies on a pedestal in this debate, and that's fair. So here is a study you stand in the university. Racial diversity and union organizing in the US in 1999 through 2008. Quote, from the app, the introduction. Does racial diversity make it hard to form a union? Most work by industrial relations scholars. Sales and Strauss, 1953. Dunlop, 1958. Labor sociologists. Nelson, 2001. Kloss in 2003. Pantasia and Vos, 2004. Lichtenstein, 2002. Presumes that it does. So the body of work on unionization... Sure, Lincoln. Sociology? I'll take a look. Backs up our position, which is that diversity... I'll give you that diversity... That disagrees with the information that I have seen, but please do, Lincoln, I'd be impressed with that. So please, Lincoln. Next. Thanks for... Let's see. Wait, actually, wait. I'm curious. I actually wait. For what change you said, I'm really curious. Why were unions less likely to form? People of different races have less in common and are thus less likely to create a union. That's a historical reality. Wait, okay. I thought it was funny because I just looked it up. It's funny you didn't read the rest of your abstract. So the study finds that more diverse establishments are less likely to see successful organizing attempts. Little evidence is found, however, that this is because workers are less interested in voting for unions. Instead, the organizers of more diverse units are more likely to give up before such elections are held. Furthermore, this higher... Why do they give up? Wait, let him finish. This higher quit rate can be explained best by considering that other organizations involved in the organizing drive. In particular, employers are more likely to be charged with unfair labor practices when the union in question is more racially diverse. This effect persists when the study controls for heterogeneity among industries, unions, and regions. Crazy! So a more diverse workplace maybe doesn't find it necessary to unionize. That's insane that your own fucking abstract... Your own fucking abstract... Oh, my God, you're smiling right now, but you're dying on the inside, James. I know that feeling. I've been there before. It happens every now and then. Still like that study, though. What you're doing... What you're doing is, one, you're contradicting the body of work that has been done in the subject, which, by the way, you should look right there. Right, and you can look at the body of work that supports that... Maybe you should cite the body of work, then, instead of the abstract. Secondly, that is an inference they're making based on the data they find, which, by the way, demonstrates that more diverse workplaces find it more difficult to unionize. Because they don't need to. You think that more diverse workplaces don't need to unionize? That's what your abstract claims. I don't know if that's true or not, but that's what your abstract claims. The relevant thing we're debating here is that more diverse places have less union organizer. That's the only thing we need to learn. The diversity. We must move on to the next one. I'm trying to remember who that one was for, that last one. I think it was for Striker and Alsup. It's hard to tell sometimes, isn't it? Short and pithy last word from you guys. You can, and then we'll go to this last one for the night. Right, okay. So, Vosch would say that he said this. He said that the reason why there's less union organizing is because of racism. Well, let's pretend that's true. It's still a reality. But if you're an actual person that actually engages with material reality, and when you put two races together in a tightly closed space, and we'll get along, maybe you should live in reality instead of living in your fucking fantasy world. That's the reality. He's saying it's because he doesn't get along with blacks. He can't imagine anyone else can. I know more black people in YouTube. That's what the study finds. That's what they find. Diversity causes problems in unionizing. No more blacks than you do, destiny. We must go to the next one. So sorry, folks. There are a lot of superchats we won't get to. Really, we tried to get through as many as we could. Dave Riley Media, last one, says, Thanks for providing a platform for this debate. Thanks so much. Appreciate that. And thanks, especially to the debaters. You need a thanks, I think. I'm thanking you. The debaters are the lifeblood of the channel. They make it fun, so we could not thank them enough. So thanks, Dave. Why isn't anyone talking about Tony Martin's claim that Jews were over-represented among slave owners in the US and the slave trade? Because it's not true. I specifically looked at a debunk of this. That person was a fucking nutter. No, Jews are not over-represented in the slave ownership. That was a black scholar that did that. Black scholars can be nutters. What the fuck are you saying? Only Jews and white liberal scholars are right here. Are you saying only white people can be nutters? That's very anti-white of you, my friend. I'm saying that there's institutional incentives to prove that. I've gone over the data. It's complicated, but it's literally just dishonesty. White people were also enslaved by Jews in the Ottoman Empire. We have plenty of data on that. We're jumping all over the place now. Actually, a white person was once brutalized by African men in the Roman Empire. Anywhere from 5 to 10 million slaves taken by the Ottomans along the Slavic routes. What the fuck does that have to do with anything? It's about the oppression of whites. The thing is that the Ottoman Empire is very closely tied to the current US justice system in the United States. The judges came over. We are discussing slavery in this question. We were talking about Jewish slavery with regards to the percentage they made up of American slaves. Which has nothing to do with the claim made. It is literally nothing to do with the claim made. I will show you a pattern of Jews internationally running the slave trade from the Dutch East Indies. I should not have read this question because it's really not about anything close to the debate topic. So that was my fault. Want to say, with that, we will wrap up. Want to say, folks, thanks so much for hanging out with us today. We really do hope you feel welcome. We want to both give a platform to people from all walks of life but also welcome the audience in terms of people from all walks of life. We are excited as Sargon will return. He will be debating Brenton sometime next week. Hopefully we will see you for that. Hit a subscribe. Give the old subscriber a click if you want a reminder of that one. Is that going to be a good one? Want to say one last thanks so much to Destiny Bosch, and thank you also for being with us tonight. That was a wild one. Good time as always. The other guys would have prepared for the actual debate material but this is a fun screening. My main problem is that it's infinitely easier to discuss these issues absent these perspectives. I have a feeling that people like Striker and Alsup have no actual interest in examining any of these topics of discussion and are more interested in reciting their stat lists. You virtually signaled to other white liberals. All right, you got it through. As I said, so that he just said right there had nothing to do with what I just said. It's like an NPC in a video game. He has a very small list of pre-recorded responses that he defers to when he's confused or upset. I think this is a good synopsis. A good encapsulation of tonight's experience which is a lot of snark, a lot of personal attack but not a lot of willingness to discuss solutions. So even if one were to concede we even if one were to concede what their supposition that there is widespread bias in the criminal justice system against blacks which is debatable, of course. You then need to discuss what the solution to that would be. Again, this is like standing by the side of your car on the highway if your tire is blown up and then just standing there frozen not being willing to discuss what to do next. Like we can't change the tire that's not part of the discussion. Isn't Destiny the one to always comment solutions? What about the solutions? The problem is it's like our tire is going flat on the side of the road and one of you guys is like actually I think the engine fell out of the car and you can't come to an agreement on what the problem even is. You can see the engine right there in the bed but they're like, I don't know. The debate right now is what is wrong with the car not how do we fix the problem with the car. You have to identify what the problem is first. I think the biggest mistake that me and Raj made was really funny because we had a conversation like two weeks ago where we were like there's like widespread consensus that black people face discrimination even when you control for all other factors and we were trying to think of like well what angle of attack are they going to go and I think that I think we generally agree that they were probably going to see the argument immediately and try to move to this culture argument which is like half-true. I wish we would have recorded that conversation so we could have released it alongside this debate to show how hilariously fucking predictable you two intellectually bankrupt dipshits are. You guys are more predictable. We did overprepare. I did overprepare. That's on me. That's my fault. And you just refuse to interpret or engage with any of our data you just ignore it you snark and you go back to repeating your own five or six talking points says the guy that's literally reading up a fucking PDF fucking Goldstein and whatever bullshit you're bringing up. Yeah PDFs are cool when we do it but not when you do it stats are fine when we do it we do studies studies are fine when we do it but not when you do it by the way you're stupid by the way you're dumb actually I'm going to say the studies on both sides are going to show me a study that Sunday fall Saturday show me a study that Washington D.C. is the capital of America show me a study data blah blah blah you can't you can't find you're offended at the idea that's why if we debate with black people they will see and not have these dumb pedantic disadvantage little ways of avoiding the actual issue. You're here to avoid the issue and keep the pressure on whitey. I'll see my time virtue signaling to other white people that's it. I'll see if I may because I defer again I'll see my time after this I just want to say you two are at your best alone or with other people who agree with you because it is painfully obvious who actually has a better understanding of these issues when you come into conflict with people who disagree with you. This is the reason why and I guarantee you this is going to happen you're going to be blocking a fuckload of people on social media afterwards who are going to be ribbing you for getting owned by a bunch of degenerate fucking liberal whatever's okay. We don't have social media. We strongly suggest you stick to your own circles. I have the only reason I block someone on social media is because people in the antiphosphore sphere of things, i.e. your sphere will just I thought I was a liberal. Yeah, you are. Antifa is a liberal organization. Okay. You know what the iron front symbol means? One of them is anti-communism. You didn't know that? The three arrows? I don't even know. Look into that. Yeah, you don't even know what that is, sure. So the point is that like you guys have a little weird group of like 14 year olds that watch people play video games on the internet they're going to do whatever you say but the point is that it doesn't mean you're right okay we have truth on our side that's one of your audiences that are going to make up the best of the genetics. This is the six-figure salary what are you some kind of each year or something there? What are you some kind of survival of the fittest each year in destiny? Because I doubt you'd win that one. I just think it's funny. To let everybody go and have the rest of their night, we will we'll say goodbye. So thanks so much folks. It's been a wild one and also forgot to mention we're excited as for the first time Christie Winters will be here this Friday debating feminism that should be interesting and then tomorrow Erica and I will co-mod a debate on creationist genetics so that should be interesting and so with that I want to say thanks to our guest though it's always a wild one so thanks they are linked in the description folks if you want to hear more and keep lifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable take care everybody