Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - Thomas Smith vs Sargon of Akkad Debate #Mythcon

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 9, 2017 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

01:21:21

Thomas Smith vs Sargon of Akkad Debate #Mythcon

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey folks, I'd like to thank Mythsist Milwaukee for inviting armored skeptic Sean Head and myself to MythCon, and also thank them for allowing me to host my debate on my channel.
	Because of the harassment campaigns by the SJWs leading up to the conference, Mythsist had gone over budget because they were forced to hire security for what should have been a pretty placid event.
	But instead of capitulating to the harassment mob, the Mythsist chaps stuck to their guns so we could speak, and I'm really grateful to them for it.
	We got to speak and I think it was very productive.
	They've been left $12,000 out of pocket because of this, which is why they were charging $3 to watch the conference online.
	But the Mythsist chaps are a bit old world when it comes to the internet, so I suggested they set up a GoFundMe page and put the conference up online for free.
	So if you enjoy the debate I had with Thomas Smith and appreciate Mythsist's resolve in ensuring that this debate could happen, please consider following the link in the description and sending them a couple of bugs.
	I've kicked in $100 myself because while we were organizing the conference, I could see the amount of strain that the organizers were under from the start, but they made it happen.
	And if you want to support that and show your appreciation, it would really help them.
	I also think it's important for us to put our money where our mouths are when it comes to this sort of thing, not only to show our appreciation, but incentivize other conferences to allow debate against social justice activists.
	It's not compulsory, of course, but please consider helping them out if you found any value in the debate.
	For anyone wondering, I was not paid for the event and I received no money from this campaign.
	It's all for the expenses incurred to host us shitlords at MythCon.
	And with that out of the way, enjoy.
	Yes, sir.
	And now for the interviewee.
	Carl Sargon of Akkad Benjamin is an incredibly popular independent YouTube entertainer.
	A skeptic of ideologies, both theological and political.
	His channel is dedicated to rational arguments and social commentary.
	This fine fellow hails from England and is a renowned amateur boulderer, which is like rock climber, but kind of smaller.
	Welcome, Sargon of Akkad.
	Hi guys, yes, Carl.
	I wanted to start with a lot of people didn't want you to be here today.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I wanted to ask you what you think about that and why you think people didn't want you to be here today.
	I think that you are you know these people, right?
	These are people you would probably call friends, aren't they?
	These are people who are putting a huge amount of pressure on you personally to censor someone.
	They've been pressuring Mythsist to do this from the start.
	Why are you siding with censors?
	How do you justify this?
	I mean, you don't call yourself a liberal and side with censors.
	So what do you call yourself?
	I'm genuinely curious.
	Because this to me is a complete default.
	The idea that I have the right to prevent someone else from speaking and all of these people from hearing what they have to say is nonsense.
	I don't have that right.
	Why do these people feel entitled to do it?
	So does everybody get to come up here or just...
	We found out yesterday that there is a line for the organizers.
	Do you agree with their decision to no platform?
	It's completely their decision who they platform and who they don't.
	And when they've decided to platform me, Shoon, Skeptic, that's their choice.
	The idea that a harassment campaign should be undertaken against them to the point where, what was it, Sean's wife burst into tears because of the group of people you were with, how they were treating her.
	Can you answer the question though of why you think they want to deplatform you like, what is it about?
	You're the one who would know.
	Well, I do know, but I want to know if you know.
	So you have no idea.
	It's a mystery to you.
	Well, okay, here, I can tell you.
	No, no, do you think that's strange?
	I mean, do you not find yourself in a position where like, why am I siding with the censors?
	I mean, how many people are you?
	I think they're afraid of what I'm going to say about them and about their ideology.
	I think that's their ideology.
	I don't think it's ideology.
	Absolutely.
	I think the ideology only survives when it goes unchanneled.
	So in my opinion, you have no understanding of why people want to censor you because it's not about ideology.
	It's not about ideas.
	I could argue your ideas all day.
	We could talk about identity politics.
	It's not that hard.
	I think if we want to clue into why people don't want you here, let's read your quotes.
	So you told a female MP, Jess Phillips.
	Everyone should know this by now.
	I just want to make absolutely.
	It's in the newspapers, so you probably do know.
	Someone who was herself a victim of sexual assault.
	All because she wanted to start a campaign to rid online bullying, to put it in.
	Oh, no, no.
	When you say, oh, it's a correct online bullying, that sounds really neutral.
	But what it is, is unjustifiable control over social media.
	Let me finish the quote, and then you can, I will, by all means, give you a chance to have your say.
	So.
	So this is someone who's a woman, a sexual assault survivor.
	Someone, we all know, like, she was public about that.
	It's in the news.
	And it's in response to a campaign to try to fight online harassment.
	And you saw fit to tweet at her, to say to her, I wouldn't even rape you.
	Yep.
	And do you understand why your moral outrage about that is something I just don't care about?
	Because you're awful.
	Yeah, I do.
	Now that's it.
	You're awful.
	Exactly.
	That is an unacceptable thing to say to somebody.
	To tell a rape victim, a sexual assault victim, I wouldn't even rape you, is disgusting.
	Why?
	That's behavior that should be beyond the pale.
	Why?
	And everybody cheering, everybody who is a part of inviting you.
	You have signaled to the women in the movement, you do not give a shit about using rape as a threat to bully somebody.
	That's what you have signaled.
	It's not a threat.
	It's the antithesis of a threat.
	That's the point.
	And the whole point of it was to demonstrate that I would say, I won't do something, and you will say, that's a threat.
	Oh, it's just a coincidence that you said rape.
	It's a deliberate coincidence.
	You didn't say I won't murder her.
	I won't.
	I won't do any of this.
	Go through all the crimes.
	Arson, I won't do it.
	It's a coincidence.
	No, it's entirely deliberate.
	because she's a victim of sexual assault you don't know anything about you know that you can use her previous trauma as a cudgel to bullying to do with her trauma And you know it, and she knows it, right?
	She was parading around saying, look, I think I get all these rape threats, and therefore I want to control the internet.
	And she's an MP, so it's not like she's powerless, right?
	And I said, right, look, the point I was making is, regardless of what she says, she's going to do it anyway.
	So if she gets something that isn't a rape threat, you're just going to claim it is anyway, because that's the point.
	It's all an ideological mission, and I object to it.
	This is the fundamental disconnect we have.
	Damn right.
	This is the reason why you have two extremely polarized groups of people.
	A group of people who are cheering saying, I wouldn't even rape you to a victim of sexual assault.
	You have those people.
	Cheering.
	Deplorables.
	And then you have people who understand.
	You have people who are sensitive to the idea that maybe we shouldn't tell people, I wouldn't even rape you.
	Maybe we shouldn't threaten people online in that way.
	It's not a threat.
	It's not it.
	Should we let the preacher carry on?
	Sorry, tell us what we should and shouldn't do.
	Let's go to your next quote.
	So, another one.
	No, no, no.
	Let's skip the quotes, right?
	Because I'm literally just going to answer every single one of these.
	From the video, I don't care about your opinion.
	Oh, good.
	From the video, I'm called feminism is a mental illness.
	Maybe these people can.
	I don't care.
	I'm curious.
	I'm mental for you.
	I'm here to discuss principle with you.
	I don't care about your morality.
	I don't care about you wanting to discuss principle.
	So let's talk about it.
	So now we're at the don't care off.
	Now we both equally don't care.
	So let's get to my question.
	I'm not morally outraged.
	Your video, feminism is a mental illness.
	Here's a quote.
	No, it wasn't quite.
	No, this is a I'm a feminist.
	I'm a feminist.
	So here's a quote that you said about me.
	Yes.
	You said, fuck you, feminists.
	This is fucking insane.
	This is actually the nail in the coffin to prove that feminism is a mental disease, and anyone who is a feminist has this disease.
	Do you want to know what?
	Anyone agree?
	Oh, dear Thomas.
	Do you guys want us to talk or just cheer at bullshit?
	Well, you're the one who said you don't want to talk.
	I want to talk about it.
	So, let me do it.
	I have two more sentences till the question.
	I don't care.
	I have two more sentences to the question.
	So, if you want to know why the snowflake was so triggered in that video, it was because all because of a petition to make men's rights activists a terrorist group.
	This petition had 4,000 signatures.
	You want to make a human rights advocacy group terrorists?
	Are you listening to yourself?
	It had 4,000 signatures.
	Because something on the internet had 4,000 signatures, you're using that to say every feminist has a fucking mental disease in that word inside.
	Oh, that's not the reason.
	I do, just for fun, just last sentence, just for fun.
	Don't waste everyone's change.
	Change.org has a petition to classify feminism as a terrorist group, 13,000 signatures.
	Oh, really?
	Yeah.
	Oh, well, that's fine.
	No, that's fine.
	That's a joke.
	No.
	No, it's a joke.
	That's a joke.
	Can you not see that he's obviously just mentioning that?
	He was joking.
	Okay.
	Okay, okay.
	So now you're censorious, you're not interested in discussing principle, and you have no sense of humor.
	Carry on, Thomas.
	I know I have plenty of sense of humor.
	That's not a joke.
	It's not fun.
	I absolutely was doing.
	Please carry on.
	It was a person.
	Good observation, gentlemen.
	So, your answer to being horrible to people online is that you just don't care.
	You don't?
	What?
	You don't care that you're horrible either or your movement is horrible.
	I'm horrible?
	Give me a picture.
	You literally, what did you just say to me when we first sat down?
	I said you're full.
	Yes, because of what you said.
	Because of what you said.
	I gave you a message.
	Well, now I'm going to say the same thing to you because of what you just said.
	Do you understand that this is just moral outrage?
	I don't care.
	So there's no difference between punching someone in self-defense and going and attacking someone in your mind.
	That's the same thing.
	Who is being punched in self-defense?
	You say shitty things.
	I'm calling you out for saying shitty things.
	Now you're saying we're even.
	Absolutely.
	In fact, I think I'm morally superior to you because you guys started it.
	You understand when you sit there and go, when you sit there and go, white men are the problem, do you see that as, and this is why I want to talk about principle with you?
	Because you are in favor of racial and gender discrimination.
	We'll get to that.
	We'll get to that.
	Oh, we'll get to it.
	Yeah.
	So I think you've already covered this, but why do you think you should be platformed, like proactively?
	Because they asked.
	Why?
	That's why.
	So as long as you are, as long as someone's interested, then.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Do you have another movement against that?
	Yeah.
	So then, can I ask you, you're pro-freedom of speech exchange of ideas then?
	I know, I'm such a Nazi.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But why aren't you, but at the same token, you're trying to ban what you've labeled social justice courses at the university.
	You're not really happy with Scientology in universities, would you?
	Creationist courses in universities?
	Is that okay?
	Right.
	So yeah, we need to really get down to the principles of the thing, don't we?
	We need to start talking about what we're actually here to discuss.
	So it's censorious to suggest that somebody shouldn't put on stage someone who says, I wouldn't even rape you to a woman who's a victim.
	That's censorious.
	But for you, someone with no expertise in a field, you're not a scientist, you don't know anything about it, for you to ban books, ban a courses, to ban courses from a school.
	That's not censorious.
	If you read the text exactly, you'll say, I requested they be suspended and investigated by the universities themselves.
	Oh, okay.
	So, but you should be able to drive suspension of education based on your ideology.
	How do you use it indoctrination, Thomas?
	So, freedom of ideas until it's something you don't agree with.
	You shouldn't even say banner.
	I said investigate them.
	Have them, I don't know.
	You said suspend them.
	Why on earth would you have the power to suspend when people are learning is, Thomas?
	Why would you think that's your place?
	Why would you think?
	I would ask someone to do it.
	Because I have a concern about it.
	Because it's discriminating against the people who are in the world.
	How is that different from people asking mythicist Milwaukee to not platform you?
	They have a concern about what's happening.
	The difference is I didn't make one of their wives cry, Thomas.
	Oh.
	Oh, what?
	You don't care about a woman now.
	You don't care about a woman being harassed by Bloodsbest because it's your team.
	This is why you're horrible.
	This is why everyone hates you.
	And this is why I'm here.
	You made me necessary.
	So in your mind, what is the definition of feminism?
	well it depends what kind of feminism you're talking about doesn't it okay what's the definition of what's what's a when you say all feminists are insane have a mental illness what's your what's your definition that you're using to say all feminists by the way not these feminists over here not whoever signed this petition Intersectionality has completely overtaken feminism.
	And it's done this by declaring, in its typically racist way, that feminists who oppose this are now white feminists, and they're just like the white men and can safely be ignored.
	What do you think of that, Thomas?
	I didn't hear a definition of it.
	Can you define what do you mean when you're talking about feminism and then you're talking about intersectionality?
	So for the audience to intersectionality has taken over feminism.
	Okay, what is feminism?
	And then what is intersectionality?
	What is in this conference is an embarrassment, by the way.
	This is an embarrassment.
	You should be fucking embarrassed.
	Why is everyone having intersectionality?
	This is the crowd.
	This is what you want the movement to be.
	You want people to be yelling that this is what you want the movement to be.
	Organizers.
	Should be fucking embarrassed.
	Your movement is tiny and collapsed.
	Would you define feminism so we can know what we're talking about?
	Feminism used to be a woman's rights advocacy movement.
	Used to.
	Okay.
	Now, it's an oppressive neo-Marxist system of structures that seek to have control over all society.
	Can you define intersectionality?
	What is that?
	I literally just did.
	That's what I'm telling you.
	It is a system of structures that want to have complete control over everything, and these are using a neo-Marxist lens.
	That's nowhere in the definition of intersectionality.
	That is not at all the definition of the language.
	You make that up.
	Yes, that is my definition of what these things are.
	Well, the definition of intersectionality, it's just you can define something as Marxism and fascism, and then what, we're supposed to cheer you on?
	You can define something as Marxism and fascism.
	They're mutually exclusive.
	But it is a Marxist movement that seeks to control people by their gender, by their race, by their sexuality.
	Name something, and you want to control it.
	But this is what it all comes down to, is the desire for control over people that's completely unjustified.
	There is no reason why I should be dismissed because I am a white man.
	No, you should be dismissed because your ideas are horrible and you tell women.
	But why is it they go, yeah, but you're a fucking white male?
	Yes, and?
	Because it has to do with where your blind spots come from.
	Exactly, but you're not addressing my blind spots.
	You're just calling me what I am.
	I didn't call you.
	I didn't call you that.
	Well, you personally.
	But do you think everyone in this room doesn't know what I'm talking about?
	I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
	So how about you define, how about you define intersection?
	You have an audience of people who watch eight hours of YouTube of you every day where you call out the worst people you can find on the other side and straw man them.
	So I want to know if you actually can define intersectionality.
	Like, do you know what it is?
	Yes.
	No, you didn't.
	I absolutely did.
	What your alarmist picture, a straw man of it.
	Okay, so are you saying my definition is wrong?
	Yes, absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	How is it wrong?
	It's not even a definition.
	You just said it's Marxist and it seeks to control everybody.
	That's not a definition.
	It's a Marxist system of a dichotomy of oppressions.
	The idea that white men are oppressing black men, or men are oppressing women, straight people are oppressing gays, by the inherent existence of these people in society.
	That's not the definition.
	But we'll go with that for you.
	That's absolutely it.
	So make the colour argument.
	so the definition if anyone actually was interested if you know you argue all day you yell at feminists for a living if you were interested in what the definition is intersectionality just has to do with the different levels of identity we have and how they interact so here's how is that different to what i've just said let me ask you this You're for individuality, right?
	Yes.
	And yet you think, yet you think that this new movement, this new part of feminism, intersectionality, is what's ruining it.
	The irony of that is intersectionality is literally the thing that makes it more individualistic.
	So that should be ruining.
	That's absolutely absurd.
	No, it's not.
	So instead of just being men versus women.
	It is entirely different.
	Do you want to let me tell you why that argument is true?
	No, it's not true.
	How about I make it argue?
	You can, but you just said I could be a Marxist fascist, so I don't think you understand this very well.
	I didn't say you could be a Marxist fascist.
	I said you know when you said they seek to control everybody by every dynamic they can, that wasn't fascism.
	So it's unfair of me.
	No, that's intersectionality.
	Okay.
	all that nonsense aside intersectionality makes us more individual because instead of looking at it does instead how about do you want me to explain it Are you not interested?
	So instead of being men versus women, instead of being black versus white, which you wouldn't agree with, you don't like that.
	You don't like, let's identify if you're, let's just pick one part of you and let's just identify you as that.
	You agree, right?
	You don't like that.
	Intersectionality allows us to say men have different experiences than women.
	Black people have different experiences than white people.
	I can do that without insight.
	Black women have different experiences than white women.
	Maybe.
	Latino women have different experiences than black women.
	Poor white women have different experiences than black women.
	That's intersectionality.
	I just gave you what intersectionality is that allows you to break down identities in a more dynamic way rather than the straw man you argue against, which is, oh, men, women, and they just want to isolate you to an idea.
	You're not going to be to yourself.
	You are collectivizing all of these people.
	No, I'm doing it.
	I'm not saying that.
	I'm not saying it's individualism.
	No, I'm doing that.
	It's not.
	it's the antithesis of individualism.
	It's literally the opposite of what you just said.
	It's allowing people's identity to be multifaceted.
	It's allowing socioeconomic status to be part of it.
	It's allowing race to be part of it.
	It's allowing gender to be part of it.
	It's catarizing into classes, Thomas.
	Yeah.
	That's collectivism.
	That's not individualism.
	But what I'm saying, if these deplorables would care to listen, is intersectionality is what gets us that more intricate level of identity.
	Of control.
	Oh, yes.
	But individualism is people should be free.
	Do you not understand how all of this is completely antithetical to the concept of liberty?
	Do you think there's any discrimination against women in our society?
	Look, when it comes down to it, let's get down to the principles.
	Are not for freedom.
	Do you think there's any discrimination against women?
	Let's get down into the principle.
	You are for equality of outcome rather than liberty.
	That is the fundamental issue of our time.
	And you should probably know that.
	Do you think there's discrimination against women in our society?
	I'm absolutely certain that there will be someone somewhere who is being discriminated against.
	Do you think there's discrimination against men in our society?
	Not really.
	Unbelievable.
	How did they.
	Listen to all these identity politics people all of a sudden.
	Weird.
	No, it's an observation of what's really happening, Tim.
	Amazing.
	So do you think there's more discrimination against men than women in our society?
	It doesn't really matter to me for you.
	No, answer the question.
	It doesn't.
	I don't know, and I don't care.
	You don't care.
	I don't know.
	So if women are discriminated against this much, men, this much, you don't have to say that.
	I don't care.
	Because I'm not a social engineer.
	I don't think, even, let's say, right?
	And this is the fundamental thing that you just don't understand, right?
	A difference in numbers in outcomes is an indication of freedom.
	Oh, it is.
	Yes.
	So when you looked at the voter totals 120 years ago and it was 100% women, 120 years ago, yeah, okay, John.
	No, 100% men, 0% women.
	Just choices.
	No, because we don't live there.
	Do you think society is the same now?
	Well, I think we've been on a continuum and it's gotten better.
	You think intersectionality came along and it's getting worse.
	So there's more discrimination of women now.
	No, there's more discrimination against men now.
	So there's more than men than women.
	So men are the victims.
	It doesn't matter.
	The point is...
	No, it does matter.
	It very much does matter.
	To you, but not to say that.
	If we're going to talk about how to make society better.
	We're not.
	You're talking about how to make society free.
	Society was incredibly free hundreds of years ago.
	We had all the liberty there could be.
	With no intervention in the Civil Rights Act.
	What's your argument against the Civil Rights Act?
	What's your argument for the Civil Rights Act?
	What's my argument for the Civil Rights Act?
	Imagine having to answer that question in 2017 later.
	Yeah, I never thought I would be in this position.
	I can't believe it.
	Your argument is you want people to be maximally free.
	The argument against the Civil Rights Act is businesses ought to be able to discriminate against black people.
	Their business choice is not fair.
	They're not being oppressed by society around them.
	What did you say?
	An individual is not free if they're being oppressed by society around them.
	How is it that I have to agree on?
	I'm going to explain that to you.
	We agree on that.
	Okay, so great.
	Now, why should, you know, just pick an example.
	Why should men be dismissed just for being men?
	Be dismissed.
	I don't know why.
	Yeah, you know, like, affirmative action.
	Why should men be discriminated against on the basis of the gender?
	They shouldn't.
	Well, you're against affirmative action then.
	Good job.
	I'm what?
	You're against affirmative action.
	Good job.
	Oh, you think affirmative action is discrimination against certain people?
	How could it not be?
	Do you know that right now, in college admissions, you have a better chance of getting in if you're a man than a woman?
	Yeah, I suppose that's why the price of all this affirmative action that's made women the majority of universities these days.
	No, it's more women are applying.
	More women are testing better men.
	Women's mask force.
	Many of discriminative action wasn't actually necessary then.
	For women, it wasn't as much.
	It's for people of colour.
	Latinos are terribly underrepresented in college.
	Do you want to make no effort to try to...
	You say underrepresented, what's the number?
	You say underrepresented.
	I think it's...
	No, no, no, no, the desired number that you want to see.
	I'm closer to the percentage that is in society.
	Okay, that makes you a social engineer.
	You're the one who's saying, look, I don't care if you're free.
	I care that you act like I want you to act.
	What?
	Okay, let me ask you this.
	You seem to want to live in the world.
	When you're the black unemployment rate is double the white unemployment rate.
	Do you see no problem there?
	It's just choice.
	I absolutely see problems in that.
	But your solutions are terrible.
	You don't know my solutions.
	How do you know my solutions?
	Any solution that would be arrived at through Marxist theory is a bad solution.
	I'm not a Marxist.
	I don't know what you are.
	I don't know it.
	So this is the style of argument you guys are cheering.
	You're cheering someone telling me my views that's incorrect.
	But you don't understand.
	Anything you're laughing at, it's strong in that he's saying I am.
	You don't understand.
	That's the level of intellectual engagement you guys support.
	You don't understand your own views.
	It's scary.
	You don't know my views.
	You've just expressed them.
	No, I didn't.
	You literally just said, I want the number of Latinos to represent exactly the percentage of the people.
	I didn't say how.
	I said that would be a good outcome if it was killed.
	But you've already advocated for intersectionality.
	Is it unfair for me to infer that you're going to use that to get to there?
	Well, using the percentages to get somewhere.
	What do you think you're arguing in defense of?
	I'm arguing in defense of equality.
	Exactly.
	You're a status quo warrior.
	You like the status quo.
	No, no, the status quo is a lot of people.
	The status quo is brilliant for white men.
	The status quo is fantastic for white men.
	Brilliant for white men.
	So you're a status quo for me.
	So that's why when James Hamilton writes one memo that is completely inoffensive, all of Google has to be like, oh, God, get it on lockdown.
	Get him out of the building.
	Fire that man.
	The idea that you think this is a status quo that's favourable to men is insane to me, Thomas.
	Well, why are 95% of CEOs men?
	Because they wanted to.
	Does anyone have a calculator?
	How many presidents have?
	That's the other thing.
	So the numerator would be zero.
	It's not 95%.
	Divided.
	Thomas.
	Do you have a calculator?
	What is it?
	That's an incorrect statistic, right?
	95%.
	It is.
	No, it's not.
	It's not 95%.
	But even then, how did 5% of CEOs become women?
	How women become CEOs, sorry.
	How did the 5% arrive there?
	They had to work harder than the men to get there.
	How do you know?
	You don't know any of these people.
	You don't know how hard they worked.
	You're just making all these blanket assumptions about group people you don't know, because you're a fucking collective.
	So when you look at the line of history and you see that women were not allowed in the world.
	We have to go back how many hundreds of years to do that.
	When you see that women were not allowed to do these positions not that long ago, they were not allowed to vote 100 years ago.
	And now, Thomas.
	Thank you.
	Oh, thank you for helping.
	They're allowed now.
	That's a great one.
	And now, so let's look at history.
	I just want to know.
	I want to know how you answer.
	That's the point.
	No, that's exactly the point.
	I don't want to look at the past.
	I want to look at the future.
	Carl, I want it is oppressive.
	Here's the question I have for you.
	How will you know when out when not outcome?
	How will you know when opportunity is equal?
	How will you know that?
	I don't think we can actually give everyone a complete equality of opportunity.
	What we want is just to have any institutional barriers alleviated from people.
	And affirmative action is placing institutional barriers in front of certain groups of people by trying to specifically privilege other groups of people.
	You must be able to agree with that.
	That's not controversial in any way.
	That's literally the method by which affirmative action works.
	What it does is it's a factor of a factor of a factor.
	Yes, but just to say that.
	If there's two equally qualified candidates and you need a tiebreaker, pick the underrepresented person.
	Discriminate based on their race.
	That's your argument.
	Racial discrimination.
	That's what you're advocating for.
	Against freedom.
	Racism.
	You're that much of a snowflake that you think if you use socioeconomic.
	What about social activity?
	Whoa, hang on.
	I thought, hang on.
	I thought, are you honestly going to ask me if I'm triggered?
	Is there something laughable about being triggered now, is there, Thomas?
	Go on.
	There is no one.
	Go on, undermine your own victims.
	You're triggered for white victims.
	It is so.
	Oh, it's because they're white.
	Yeah.
	Brilliant.
	You're triggered for white male victims.
	Yeah, no, tell me what's wrong with white men.
	Go on.
	Nothing's wrong with them, but they have privilege in our society.
	Do they?
	They have privilege.
	The privilege of being not against.
	Do you think you have no privilege?
	The privilege of being discriminated against.
	What a privilege.
	I'll give that up.
	Let's get rid of affirmative action.
	I'll get rid of my privilege.
	Free sex male!
	I'm good!
	You really think that that's the biggest issue?
	That's the biggest opinion on the biggest.
	White men are the most discriminatory.
	That's what we're here to discuss.
	Are white men the most discriminated?
	I don't know about the most, I just know they are being.
	And I know that a lot of other people have a problem with this too, because racial discrimination is bad no matter who it's happening to.
	It's not a defensible position.
	Sure.
	The status quo is literally in favour of that, though.
	Don't just say shouldn't be.
	Now, the status quo discriminates.
	Did it?
	The status quo discriminates.
	I'm in favor of making things more equal.
	Okay, but I'm not.
	I'm making things more free.
	And freedom never entails discrimination.
	Freedom allows white men to control everything.
	Oh my god, you're a white supremacist!
	You are actually a white supremacist with a guilty conscience, Thomas.
	Jesus Christ.
	Honestly, this is like 45 have been white men.
	When Congress is 90% white, way overrepresented, you don't think that the status quo through history has allowed the NBA.
	Why not the NBA?
	This country is 200 years old.
	Hang on, guys.
	Why not the NBA?
	Why aren't you complaining about that?
	Why aren't you complaining about women's underrepresentation in sewer cleaners?
	You want things to be equal.
	Where's your affirmative action for that?
	Okay, so feminism helps that by trying to combat gender roles.
	So if gender roles are responsible for men feeling like they have to do certain jobs, some of them because they need to be manly, then I would be in favor.
	You think they base their manliness on whether they clean sewers?
	Then I would be in favor of making it so that men don't feel compelled to do some of these things by society if they don't want to.
	There's no choices will always be different.
	I'm not saying everyone has to make the same choices, but the evidence is that certain groups get discriminated against when you do resume studies, and you see...
	When you have affirmative action.
	What?
	Affirmative action.
	When you do resume studies and you see that women's resumes are rejected way more often, you think, what do we do about that?
	I don't know.
	I would have to see the resumes and see why they're being rejected.
	No, it's the same resume for a man and a woman.
	It's a blind study.
	You put a man's name on an identical resume to a woman, they get rejected.
	Yeah, there may be a multitude of reasons for that, but you know what I don't think will solve it?
	Is gender discrimination?
	you think we we need to solve that problem if that is what is allowing 95 percent of CEOs to be male is that if that's what I'm assuming this you're not proving this I don't know that that's the case.
	We have the science and the studies that tell us this discrimination happens.
	And they're now reproducible.
	Even if, let's assume, let's just grant you everything that you're saying, and this has been scientifically proven, the adequate response, the way to fix this is not to discriminate on the basis of gender.
	How would you fix it?
	I don't know.
	How would you fix it giving a solution?
	I don't know, but I know how to do it.
	There are a lot of people who are being discriminated against in the workplace.
	I want to know if you have a solution for that.
	I didn't say I have a solution.
	What I'm saying is I'm a response to a system of oppression that you're trying to impose on people.
	A system of oppression.
	We already know.
	Oh, let's do a hypothetical.
	Just a discussion.
	Why can't we just go down to the principles?
	That's what I'm doing.
	You're not going to be able to do it.
	Let's do a hypothetical to pinpoint the principle.
	I'm literally saying to you, discrimination based on these unchangeable characteristics is wrong.
	And you said, no, I'm in favor of it.
	I agree with you, and that discrimination is happening in hiring.
	Okay, so maybe we shouldn't increase the amount of discrimination happening.
	Okay, hypothetical.
	Do you disagree?
	So you don't think there's any discrimination in hiring the workplace?
	No bias.
	Okay, do you think there is?
	You just said your solutions are intolerable.
	Can we do that?
	You're not liberal because your solution is just anti-decent sentence.
	You're not listening.
	You're not understanding.
	You're not engaged in the mindset.
	Because you haven't gotten to the end of what I'm trying to ask you.
	So if there's inequality in the workplace and we know that discrimination happens when we do double-blind studies of resumes and between gender and between race, we know that's happening.
	So that's already unequal.
	But let's just assume it, yeah.
	Are you saying there's no solution to that and trying to offset it by when there's a tie going with someone who's being discriminated against by their race, trying to offset it that way?
	You think that's oppression?
	I don't think racial discrimination is the answer to racial discrimination.
	What is the answer?
	I don't know.
	So the answer is the status quo because you're a status quo warrior.
	And the status quo that favors white menu is greater minds than mine, right?
	But the problem is that these people can't speak out because social justice warriors act like a mafia in society.
	They go around terrorizing people.
	So they're afraid to speak out.
	And when they do, you get James DeMore.
	He becomes famous just because he wrote something that's utterly incontrovertible.
	It's not controversial at all.
	All he's saying is men and women have different interests.
	Oh, shock horror.
	Is everyone okay for hearing that?
	Did anyone know this?
	This is new.
	Men and women are not exactly the same.
	I agree.
	Are you ready for this?
	I agree.
	Men and women tend to have different interests.
	That's not why he got fired.
	Now that explains most of the inequality in society.
	All right, status quo warrior.
	Let's move on.
	The status quo is diversity quotas.
	Why do you think I'm afraid of the- I'm a radical, Thomas.
	I want to get rid of all of these.
	I want to get rid of hate speech in my country.
	Quotas are illegal.
	There's no such thing as diversity quotas.
	Those are illegal.
	Maybe in this country.
	They're illegal.
	Okay, we're in this.
	Affirmative action, any kind of quotas, hate speech laws, and I want to get rid of the gangs of people on social media who terrorize others for having the wrong thoughts.
	Let's move on.
	You call yourself a liberal.
	The idea that you think I'm in favor of the status quo just goes show how much power and privilege you have.
	What?
	That doesn't even make sense.
	You are the one who's a bad person.
	Even your own audience didn't get that.
	Why is it?
	Look at the stress.
	You have no change in that.
	There's discrimination.
	I just let you ramble for five minutes.
	You have no solution for discrimination.
	We offer a solution, which is, in the case of a tie, go with the other rules.
	Everything of discrimination has to be done individually.
	Each person has to take it upon themselves not to racially discriminate.
	You are someone who racially discriminates, therefore you are not part of the solution.
	you are part of the problem.
	What is the solution to getting...
	The solution is to make discrimination illegal, which it is, and then to enforce those laws as and when we see them being broken.
	You can't enforce a law, it's done unconsciously.
	You can't enforce a law.
	You can't enforce a law.
	I know I'm not used to having a video where you stop it mid-sentence and take your silly shit.
	But how about you let me finish my thing?
	Yeah, but you just said you can't enforce a law.
	I can't do it.
	All you did is straw me.
	You stopped me mid-sentence.
	You stopped me mid-sentence and argue against something I didn't even mean as a way to gain points.
	You're starting with it.
	It's ridiculous.
	You're starting with the premise of racism.
	Your argument builds on the premise of you can't enforce a law.
	Bollocks.
	I started over.
	We're really, really, you're going to argue with two words, three words or whatever that I started over because I misspoke.
	You started with something.
	Oh, sorry.
	I misspoke.
	Sorry.
	You didn't say you misspoke.
	Sorry, please.
	I did say I misspoke.
	Oh, you stopped me and I went back.
	Okay, sorry, go on.
	Quick.
	There are laws against discrimination, but you can't stop unconscious bias.
	You can't stop the idea.
	What happens in these resume tests?
	And they've done a study on this.
	They take two equal resumes.
	They'll do different groups of them.
	So one that has more education and one that has more work experience, and vice versa.
	When there's a man on the man's name, when there's a women's name, they're treated differently.
	And they're able to find an excuse to constantly discriminate against women.
	If it's one where there's more education and less work experience, and it's the women when they say, we need more experience, because you need experience in the real world to do this job.
	If it's the opposite, where there's not as much education and a lot of work experience, they can say that she's not educated enough.
	It's identical.
	The pattern happens.
	They've studied it.
	You can't make a law against it.
	Can you suggest a law that you could write?
	So I can't suggest the law to police people's thoughts, and I would never even dream of doing that.
	Exactly, I agree.
	That's your idea.
	You want to police people's thoughts.
	No, I don't.
	I want to try to counteract by the method of when there's a tie, choose the group that is racially discriminated.
	Race and gender.
	So it could be sociographics then.
	The idea that you think that these two people have no further characteristics than race and gender is incredible.
	I mean, like, you know, the person might be like, okay, this person was polite and this person wasn't polite.
	It's not a person.
	It's a resume test where they take identical resonance.
	You understand how studies work.
	Yeah, but the idea, the point, you're proposing a rule.
	You're doing a blind study.
	You understand how this is.
	You're not a rule that will be used in reality, right?
	You understand that, don't you?
	What?
	You are proposing a method of action, a rule that we will use in society at large.
	People will have to live under.
	This is what I'm saying.
	You don't seem to understand.
	You're demanding control of all of society.
	Like, you think this is Plato's public?
	Maybe I'm not sure.
	Maybe I can tell you.
	You want to institute this?
	I'm not suggesting that it should be the law that people promote certain genders or racist.
	I'm suggesting, as a society, to try to fix this underrepresentation that we know happens, when there's equal-looking candidates, we should try to help an underrepresented group.
	Because we know that diversity is a benefit to corporations.
	They make more money if they're more diverse.
	It's not known Khaleesi, yeah.
	What?
	It's known.
	Sorry, go on.
	We know that the more you have a monopolized group of people in a corporation, the worse that atmosphere is going to be for the one person of an underrepresented group.
	How do you know that?
	Because I talk to them and listen to them.
	Yeah, and I talk to people and listen as well, and I talk to people who don't agree with that.
	You know, remember we were talking about bubbles?
	Everyone's in a bubble.
	Do you think this is maybe a consequence of your bubble?
	The people you're talking to are just people who agree with you on this.
	And the people I'm talking to are people who don't agree with you.
	You have a group of chattering sycophants who are cheering.
	I'm the one.
	I'm here to be abused.
	I disagree with them a lot, but I listen.
	See?
	I'm actually not in the echo chamber.
	You think I am?
	You're the one who's in the chat.
	I think you are in the echo chamber.
	I had James Cole on my show.
	You don't, I mean, I would love to get to talk to James Moore.
	I'm sure he's a very interesting guy.
	I'm making a case that I'm not in an echo chamber as much as you are.
	I'm in an echo.
	all in echo chambers you're in a bigger maybe but you're You're in one where it's okay to yell, I would not even rape you.
	To tweet, I would not even rape you to a woman.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	That's an echo chamber.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	Why would I care?
	I don't care about your morality.
	Yeah, why should you?
	Why would I?
	It's a tweet.
	It's a tweet.
	Listen to you.
	Would you say something?
	You know what?
	Would you say that to a person?
	Sure, I wouldn't even rape you.
	Would you walk into that?
	Yes, you did.
	I'll give you that when I walked into that.
	Would you say that to my wife?
	Sure, if she asked me.
	If my wife were a victim of sexual assault and she started a movement to try to combat bowling online, would you tell us that?
	Is your wife an MP?
	Do you want to know what would happen to you if you told her that?
	Is your wife an MP who's trying to gain control of the internet?
	No, but she might be for this one.
	Why would Evelyn said?
	You're the one who's hung up on this, not me, I don't care.
	I just don't care about this issue.
	You keep coming back to it.
	This is your hang-up.
	Yeah, because I'm pointing out that it's your bubble.
	You don't care because it's your bubble.
	I'm in the bubble of people who care about not being horrible.
	So that's my problem.
	But your bubble of people made one of the organizers' wives cry.
	I mean, that's not very feminist, is it?
	To make women cry.
	What do they do that, because I don't support that.
	I've asked her online.
	Of course you don't support that, but that's what the movement you're part of is doing.
	There are stupid people on each side of the internet.
	There are people who are there plenty of people crying on this side.
	There are people crying on that side.
	We're talking about you.
	No, the problem isn't actually me.
	The problem is you, though.
	The problem is your movement.
	It does these things.
	This is what the problem with collectivism is.
	You don't care about the individual.
	You care about the group, the numbers.
	I do care about the individual.
	You literally are just, the things you describe are putting the supremacy of the group over the importance and primacy of the individual every single time.
	No, everything you do.
	You use these numbers to see evidence of discrimination that happens in our society.
	I care about that.
	Okay, but you don't have any right to tell people how to live their lives.
	I have to engineer society.
	I think we can enact policies that will help to combat.
	Do you guys get to talk?
	I think we can enact policies that will help to combat what inherent racism does.
	So you want control over society.
	And you want to racially discriminate.
	When I say a policy, which is maybe we should have more, I don't know, blind resume review.
	So maybe you shouldn't, maybe, this is not, I don't think this should be a law.
	But if I say it should be a good idea to review resumes without looking at the name, you think I'm trying to control people.
	I'm just saying that would be a good way to try to fight discrimination.
	I actually agree with you.
	I actually agree on the blind resume thing, right?
	But the thing is, it doesn't just end there, and it doesn't really begin there.
	It doesn't end there.
	That's one small thing.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But this is the point.
	I mean, that would be a liberating thing to do.
	That would stop people from being racially discriminated, at least openly.
	How much longer is this going to go?
	I think we should go to.
	We can go to a QA.
	I have a lot of stuff, but I'm going to skip it because you don't give a shit about people, so who cares?
	Let's talk about ideas.
	Let's talk about this.
	Do you support Black Lives Matter?
	Talk about Black Lives Matter.
	No, it's a racial interest group.
	It's entirely collectivist, it's anti-individualistic.
	I mean, the idea that Black Lives Matter, like, I've seen white Black Lives Matter supporters calling black people coons and traitors to their race.
	Cool.
	You saw someone on the internet.
	Great.
	So let's talk about...
	Oh, it doesn't matter.
	If it doesn't matter, then fuck your tweets.
	No, it doesn't matter.
	It's not an offense over tweets if it doesn't matter.
	No, it does matter.
	Oh, so now it doesn't matter.
	If I had that person, Carl, why is it white people?
	If I had that person on stage, if I had that person on stage, I would say that is a shitty thing to do.
	Oh, that's great, but that's what your movement produces.
	So own it.
	That's ridiculous.
	The idea that, whatever.
	Do you think there's no need for Black Lives Matter?
	I'm absolutely certain that there are black communities that need help.
	And an interest group for these communities, if they want one, is fine.
	I have no objections to this.
	But when you sit there and go, right, white people are doing this to us, I have an objection because you can't demonstrate that white people are doing this.
	This is drawman.
	Society is doing it.
	We have the data.
	I'm a data guy.
	So you're a feelings person.
	You feel like there's no discrimination.
	Are you insane?
	But I.
	Oh my God.
	My facts do not give a shit that you feel like there's no discrimination.
	You have no principles.
	That's my problem.
	You already talk about the need for Black Lives Matter.
	You do not operate from a point of principle and you know, no you don't.
	Oh, I absolutely do.
	What principle?
	My principle is when there's discrimination in society, we should work to get rid of it.
	That's solid principle.
	Yeah, but towards what?
	Like, what do you want?
	Towards equality of opportunity.
	I agree with equality of opportunity.
	No, you don't.
	Yes, I absolutely agree.
	You agree with equality.
	I absolutely agree with equality.
	Let's talk about opportunity.
	You are for equality of outcome.
	You have literally said, I want the number of, you said the number of Latinos to represent the pattern.
	You use outcomes to measure what the opportunity is.
	It helps you as a tool to measure.
	It helps you as a tool.
	You're absolutely wrong.
	Black men are 6.5% of the population.
	They are 40% of our prison population.
	You do not think we can use that number to say, maybe something's going wrong.
	I do think you should speak to black people and ask them why these problems are happening.
	They're the ones doing it.
	It's their communities that are producing the problems.
	You're not going to be able to legislate this problem out of existence.
	You think it's black people's fault that there's 40% of them in politics?
	I believe that black people are responsible for their own actions.
	If black people are committing crimes at a disproportionate rate, that is their responsibility.
	So that's a feeling.
	Let's talk about the data.
	No, that's not the problem.
	We know that black men are pulled over and searched three times more than white men.
	We know that when those searches happen, white people have drugs or contraband 50% more than black men.
	And they're arrested more.
	And we pull them over due to bias.
	We don't shoot white people more than black people.
	What did you say?
	We also know that cops shoot people.
	Not per capita.
	Yes, no, not per capita.
	No, they're more likely to shoot a white person.
	Yeah, because there are way more white people.
	No, no.
	Yes.
	Per capita, black men are killed by police.
	Three to four times more.
	It's more likely they'll shoot a white person.
	But you can't.
	You're because there's more white people.
	No, it's the percent, the chance of it happening.
	Because there's more white people.
	Per capita.
	On an international kill.
	If a white person is pulled over and a black person is pulled over, the white person has more chance of being shot.
	That is correct, yes.
	Shut up, I don't, yeah, but it is correct.
	You just don't know.
	This is your point now.
	You don't address any of that.
	Black men are killed three to four times more often than white men per capita.
	Because they're committing more crimes.
	No, crime does, it doesn't explain it.
	The studies have been done, that's the over-policing.
	They're pulled over three to four times more.
	They're not responsible for their own actions.
	Got it?
	They're searched three to four times more.
	White people.
	They're searched three to four times more.
	White people have drugs more often.
	Wow.
	You don't care.
	You don't care about that bias.
	You literally didn't care about my point.
	Don't sit there and go, you don't care when you're dismissing what I'm saying, and it's legitimate statistics.
	You are the one in three black men killed by police were even suspected by a crime.
	I don't care.
	I feel like I don't want to interject, but I do.
	Fascinating point.
	And I agree with both of you.
	I don't know how that's possible, but I do.
	Aren't we good till 240?
	Yeah, but we were going to do the Q ⁇ A.
	Yeah, well, I'll do the Q ⁇ A.
	Okay.
	Let's finish the Black Lives Matter.
	I'm not really interested in Black Lives Matter.
	Again, you're not interested because you know the data goes against what you're saying, and you don't give a shit.
	Again, this comes down to the problems may well exist, but your solutions are terrible.
	I object to racial interests.
	No, my solutions are attempting to eliminate discrimination and policing.
	By oppressing.
	Black people are stopped more.
	Although there are 15% of all stops in 2015, they accounted for 42% of non-consent searches.
	Okay, okay, so we're gonna do another five minutes, but I just wanted to give you like a look, you know So we'll go to like 2 15 to 60 Black people have the lowest hit rate.
	Can I get searches?
	Can I get searches?
	I have explained to you your solutions are terrible.
	You don't know my solutions on this.
	my solution to this you i don't know to that but it doesn't matter because you just admitted you don't know You said my solution is not cheap.
	I said, what is my solution?
	You said, I don't know.
	Yeah, no, I don't know.
	That's awesome.
	That's a good argument.
	Because look, it goes down to the problem.
	But shiny people.
	anti-liberty you are fine with saying right what we need is should police have the liberty and I'm over black and I'm off and can I Can I speak?
	You are in favour of controlling society top down.
	I'm in favor of liberty, so that's society controlled bottom up.
	I think people are responsible for their own actions.
	You need to go and speak to these people.
	There is no systemic solution to the problems you are mentioning.
	The stats show police search them more often.
	They pull them over more often per capita.
	That's great.
	I'm glad you're here.
	The success rate of these searches is more for white people.
	That's fascinating.
	So you don't care that police are racist, and they unconsciously...
	Oh, the police are just racist now.
	You don't care that police unconsciously harbor biases.
	Wow.
	You do not care.
	I don't agree that the police are racist.
	The police harbor biases that allow racist outcomes.
	This is why you end up calling black people coons, you know, or white people.
	I don't do that.
	Oh, you are implying that.
	I don't do that and I would never do that.
	I was literally, it's amazing how diverse the white supremacists are.
	Attack somebody on the internet that I don't know and I wouldn't support.
	I was in Berkeley, right?
	And I'm watching some white kid in college.
	There are lines of cops, right?
	And there's a black cop and a Mexican cop and then a couple of white cops.
	And this kid literally yells, KKK supporter at the black cop.
	A white kid.
	Explain it.
	Why is this happening?
	And it's easy to explain, right?
	Is that worse or better than tweeting at an MP victim of rape?
	Wow.
	No, do you?
	Wow.
	I want to know which is worse.
	I think that's a way worse thing.
	You think that's way worse?
	Oh, yeah.
	I think literally anything that happens in real life is way worse than any tweet.
	That is your life.
	You are a public person.
	We knew it was you.
	She's a public person.
	When you sent the message, it went to her.
	She saw it.
	It's in life.
	Oh, and what was her reaction?
	She talked about how after a bunch of your goons went after her and she had 600 to 1,000 rape threats.
	She never did.
	She had non-rape threats.
	You're saying she had no rape threats.
	She's zero.
	She literally goes through every tweet.
	It was people saying, I won't rape you.
	They're not threats.
	And you can't make them threats no matter how many times you say it, right?
	But do you know what her response to this was?
	Yeah, I watched her videos about it.
	And what did she say?
	Well, she thinks it's a good reason for her initiative.
	No, she literally went on Victoria Live, a British TV program, and said, I didn't care.
	I was out in the gunplay with my kids.
	I just don't care.
	So that you're arguing over a tweet that caused no damage, there's no offense, and the victim of this non-threat doesn't even give a shit.
	You look like you're about to get away from the title.
	You don't think she's trying to?
	Why?
	Why?
	Explain why you're so emotionally invested in this.
	What?
	Explain why you were so emotionally invested in a tweet that the victim of the non-rape friendly.
	Do you think it would have been a better idea if she was hurt by your discussion?
	It would at least give her.
	My feelings were hurt.
	You think it would have been better for her to say that?
	Yeah.
	She could have walked in and say, hey, look, you are not speaking in defense of anyone.
	Do you understand that?
	I'm ruling our agency.
	There is no victim.
	There is no victim.
	You're not speaking in defense of anyone.
	No, literally, she said, I don't care if you're a kid.
	This is why everyone.
	This is why the street.
	And we're back.
	Wow, that is the fastest I've ever seen a line queue up.
	I can't wait for 700, what about white men questions?
	Okay.
	Valid point.
	I don't know if the organizers are happy with this being what their conference is.
	So let me harp back to what we had talked about before.
	Which was, you know, peace, unity, don't be a dick.
	So.
	Does that apply to tweeting that I wouldn't even rape you on?
	It doesn't apply to what's said on Twitter.
	Anywho.
	Yeah, so we're going to do one question.
	The whole no-life story thing really applies here.
	And we have a very intimidating mic presence here.
	He is wearing a tie, everyone, so you got to listen to him.
	And take it away.
	Karen Gars, the faithless feminist.
	I believe that religion is the last cultural barrier to equality, and we need to get women out of churches, and we're not going to do it with two white men talking about women and minorities.
	I agree.
	I apologize for being a white male.
	I'll do my best not to be next time.
	Or the organizers could invite somebody.
	Why are you here?
	You're a white man.
	Why didn't you advocate for whom?
	I shouldn't be here.
	I would advocate that the organizers invite someone else.
	But why did you even turn up?
	You're a white man.
	You knew you were occupying a space like this.
	I was invited, but I think they should invite more people to be able to.
	I agree.
	The organizers shouldn't invite him and they should invite black women by Thomas's own admission.
	Yeah.
	Great, well done.
	You've just deplatformed yourself.
	He's still up there, so anyway.
	Yeah, good point.
	Oh, we'll see if I'll see next time.
	Next time.
	So you mentioned that you know that black people are pulled over more frequently and searched than white people.
	So do you think that police should then outwardly ignore someone committing a crime if they are black?
	Oh, of course.
	Yeah, I'm sure I think that.
	Yeah.
	No, I don't.
	That's absurd.
	I think they should not search black men more often than white men per capita, even though the drop rate, the hit rate on contraband is higher for white people.
	I think they should try to combat that unconscious bias, which makes them say, as we've seen in studies, which makes them think of black men as older and as more threatening.
	We know this is true.
	Okay, but that's what we're doing.
	We should do our best to fight that bias.
	How could you disagree with that?
	I have a question for you, though.
	When you end up looking at the statistics and you're looking at going, right, okay, so half of the crime is from black men, given a disproportionate number of the population.
	Your only analysis of that is to say that that's racism, isn't it?
	No, I think it's a product of a lot.
	There may be some outright racism somewhere along the chain.
	I think it's a product of a lot of unconscious biases for which we have data.
	It's a product of poverty, and that reinforces itself.
	So as we've arrested more men in the drug war and the way we've discriminated in our sentencing to the 100-to-1 sentencing, we've put more black men in prison by far astronomically more than white.
	That breaks up families, that creates poverty, that creates more crime.
	Okay, that's a great point, because you say, right, we're putting more black men in prison.
	So yeah, but that's because they're the ones committing the crimes.
	The individual has to be responsible for their natural.
	We can't just start letting black people.
	Can I just give you an example?
	What happens a lot of times, 95% of all prosecutors in this country are white men, 95%.
	And if you don't think that bias is affecting the outcome, prosecutorial discretion is one of the biggest tools for this discrimination.
	Maybe you'll see that.
	And it's unconscious.
	So when there's a white guy gets caught with a joint, they say, college kid, screwed up.
	When there's a black guy gets caught with a joint, they say, this is a drug dealer.
	We need to put this guy away.
	They have the discretion to make that call, and bias, unconscious bias, or conscious, I don't know, but one or the other has drastically.
	I don't think you know about the people you're talking about.
	All of these are, this is the problem, right?
	You're trying to take a systemic solution to what are individualistic problems.
	You can't solve them that way.
	And you never will.
	Next question.
	Sorry.
	Hi, Sargon.
	Welcome to Milwaukee.
	Thanks, it's been very fun.
	Real quickly, I know you guys both brought up a point that I agree with strongly on blind recruitment for jobs, which I think is actually a good thing.
	And then over in Australia, they went and they suspended their program because they said the quote here, it says, We found the opposite that de-identifying candidates reduced the likelihood that women being selected for the short list.
	And so I just wonder that if that's a scenario where, let's say we make things anonymous and women are less likely to get selected for a job, kind of like deconfirming affirmative reaction.
	Do you guys both agree with that premise that in that case they shouldn't be selected for those job opportunities?
	Well, you agree with that, don't you?
	I would say, so we have, I don't know that example, but we have plenty of examples of it being positive, like the orchestra example made a huge positive impact to audition behind a screen where they didn't know the gender.
	I think it can be positive.
	I think in cases where there's other possibly systemic or choice reasons, it may result in a different discrepancy in jobs, and we'd have to look at that individual example.
	The people don't know the gender of the people, so it can't be like a form of discrimination.
	No, I agree.
	It could be, I said, a systemic, like, if they didn't go into that field for a reason, it could be some other.
	Is there any chance that the men are just doing more work than the women, though?
	I want a resume?
	Yeah, sure.
	Why?
	Well, do you think everyone's resume is the same?
	Well, but that's still a fact.
	Yeah, but I didn't say that there's discrimination.
	I agreed with you.
	I said that there's some other factor.
	So before that, I think the factor might be the men are working harder than the women.
	I don't have any evidence for that, but I would not be, if it turns out that we have good evidence that we've reduced the bias in the hiring and the screening, and we know from talking to people that the environment isn't like sexist or racist or anything, if we know that those factors are there and there's no inherent systemic discrimination and then there's a gender gap.
	Fine, I don't care.
	I'm not going to take a 60-40 and say...
	You wouldn't sit there and go, yeah, but I want equality then.
	No.
	Not in those circumstances that you said.
	This is why I say you don't hold any principles.
	No, I have, I am, that is my principle.
	You think my principles are something else, and so when they're not that strong man, you're saying, wow, you know, stick with the body.
	I don't think what you say what they are.
	You say, you literally said earlier, I want equality.
	No, I said I want equality of opportunity, and we use equality of outcome to help measure where that equality of opportunity is.
	Freedom means you're going to get a different outcome.
	You're never going to get the same.
	What are you talking about?
	We can look at the industry, we can look at the job, you'd have to break it down to know.
	Gentlemen, let's move to the next question.
	Okay, hello, everyone.
	My name is Tony B. I'm the token Mexican here tonight.
	He looks like a white supremacist.
	Go ahead, man.
	We're part of the Existentials YouTube video.
	So I just want to ask both of you just to clarify: we're talking about, I come from these neighborhoods of Latino, black, impoverished neighborhoods.
	I want to know, both Thomas first, when it comes to individual responsibility, what is your stance?
	How far should we intervene, taking away, because you care about the individual.
	So what type of interventions would you like to see to help alleviate our social ills?
	And Sargon, we know that studying politics, studying sociological phenomenon and institutions, we call path dependency to look at history to see how we come from point A all the way to point G. How far should we go back to history if it's sometimes irrelevant?
	And what would you do now if we want to look past and say does it matter to alleviate the social ills that my community and my fellow black community members face?
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	Sure.
	I think that obviously I think there's a level of individual responsibility.
	I don't think that's zero.
	I think that what I would be happy with are policies that attempt to fix the systemic problems that we know exist.
	So over-policing, and over-policing is a huge one.
	might be the biggest for me because that creates so much poverty and things that you might think is oh that's just individual responsibility it To me, aren't we all atheists here pretty much?
	Aren't we all materialists pretty much?
	I mean, it's weird for me, for a group that likely, I would think, believes in materialism, and so as such, we recognize that free will is kind of eh.
	Like, I don't know how much, like, I think that what goes into your circumstances is your genetics and your environment.
	Don't lump us all together, Tom.
	Yeah.
	Oh, so are there some people where that's not true?
	Are there some people that are here not because of their genetics and their environment?
	There's some other soul or something.
	Tom, I think there's something called agency.
	I'm excited and all that bad agency.
	Right.
	I can't remember the exact wording of the question I was asked, but these communities, unfortunately, we have to be honest, there is no outside solution to these communities.
	Because often these communities identify themselves as being deliberately separate from the surrounding community, the surrounding society.
	And this is how they kind of maintain themselves.
	Unfortunately, they're going to have to do it themselves.
	And Ben Shapiro lays out the whole like, you know, get married, don't drop out of school, don't have kids for wedlock, and you won't find yourself in poverty in the United States.
	So this is studies show that that's true and unfortunately it's going to have to be a bit of stoicism.
	It's going to have to be a bit of self-reliance.
	You can't rely on the white man to pull people out of poverty if they don't want to be pulled out of poverty.
	And if they're going to take all these actions, what are you going to do?
	Hello.
	I was wondering, lately we've been seeing more issues online, you know, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, where people are usually being cut off, you know, suspended for often no reason at all.
	Do you think that's going to hurt the platform in the long run or do you think other platforms are going to come along that'll take those places?
	Thank you.
	You know that better than I do.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I haven't been banned from anything because I don't harass people.
	Yeah, well, that's not the reason I was banned, unfortunately, Thomas.
	It was actually my fault crimes.
	It's all political.
	Sure.
	But yeah, I imagine it will hurt them in the long run.
	And there are already competitors springing up.
	I mean, like, Gab has been noticing huge increase in, effectively, lost Twitter users who have been banned from the platform because they said the wrong thing.
	Yeah, the market will end up killing these things and more power too.
	I'd like to start my question by saying.
	Sargon, I wouldn't even rape that sweet, sweet boy pussy.
	Thank you so much.
	But on a more serious note, we see a lot of times with class politics and Marxism that they pit the rich against the poor.
	Where I've seen that the rich and the poor more form a symbiotic union where the rich provide for the poor and the poor become the lifeblood of the rich.
	And instead it's the middle class that are the problem.
	They come in, they don't provide much to society other than useless intellectuals.
	And then they become distraught with their condition because they can never move into the upper classes.
	So then they become jealous of the people above them and they become resentful of all who are passing by them.
	Socialists just hate the rich, man.
	YouTube video just start a channel or something.
	That's a good idea, you should.
	Is that a political lecture?
	Yeah, I was expecting a question, but I'm okay with it.
	It was leading up.
	Chatelet, brother Sargon.
	You've spoken up against affirmative action.
	yes would you make an exception if i i see where this is going By rooting for affirmative action for the oppressed Khakistani people.
	I'm afraid I'm going to have to stand on principle and just ask for liberty for them instead.
	Hello, everyone.
	Tom Sargon, thanks for being here.
	Something more in light, like affirmative action, not Kekistani.
	It's more of a guy serious-based question.
	What do you guys think of affirmative action for college scholarships being just more of a personal economic backgrounds?
	Like you hear socioeconomic backgrounds, but that's just based off region.
	Sometimes there are people that are just personally not supported by their parents or they get thrown out of their house no matter where they're from and they're working their way through college and supporting themselves, sometimes working two or three jobs.
	What do you think about affirmative action then?
	It already exists.
	So socioeconomic status is part of affirmative action.
	The FAFSA is another tool for that.
	That already exists.
	Sargon will tell you you can't discriminate based on socio-economic status.
	So helping people who are poor is discrimination against rich people by that logic.
	But go ahead.
	Do you know what's really interesting?
	In the UK, we have more people going to university than ever before.
	And we have student loans that people pay off over the course of their life.
	And this has absolutely worked.
	Now, half a million people, yeah, more than, are enrolled into university.
	It's working.
	You can't argue with them.
	And ultimately, why should someone else have to pay for your university education?
	I know I'm going to sound like a conservative did, but how is it someone else's responsibility, especially when a loan is available, for you to actually take out and then you pay it off when you earn over a certain amount?
	I think it's £21,000.
	It's a working system.
	Why change it?
	I think the system's a little different here.
	Yours might well, I'm not familiar with how your admission system works to be honest.
	Hello, I'd just like to thank you, Mr. Akkad, for not only coming to Milwaukee, but also for making my mother laugh.
	Oh, pretty difficult to do.
	My question for you is, because you come from a background where you work on YouTube and you deal with criticism on a daily basis.
	And what is, in your opinion, the best way to take in the criticism, discern which is legitimate and which is delegate, and how to apply it to yourself?
	You have to take on a case-by-case basis.
	You have to look at the way people are approaching you.
	If they begin by telling you that you're an awful person, this probably isn't legitimate criticism.
	If they can't, if they can't.
	Are you an awful person?
	Oh, see?
	I knew you'd get prickly about that, right?
	If it's, and the thing is, right, Thomas, leading up to this, you called me alt-right.
	Yes, you did.
	I will show you the screenshots, Thomas.
	You called you alt-right?
	Yes.
	Right?
	That was something I didn't get to.
	The alt-right doesn't endorse you.
	You say you're not alt-right.
	I'll take your word for it.
	The members of the alt-right endorse you, and they absolutely do not, Thomas.
	Yes, Richard Spencer said you lead people in his direction.
	Another guy in Dale Taylor thinks you do it.
	Another guy in Stormer said you lead people in their direction.
	But I don't think I said that, but if I did by accident, I apologize.
	I don't think.
	Okay.
	I don't think, well, you don't self-identify as all right.
	I think ultimately you lead people there and your effects are all right.
	That's my opinion.
	Okay.
	But you don't self-identify as that.
	I didn't remember calling you that side.
	Yeah, but none of my political positions are in any way.
	I mean, I'm not racially pure enough to join the alt-right.
	So, you know, they are of white identity.
	It doesn't mean you can't be a useful tool for them, though.
	Well, you are the useful tool.
	This is the thing.
	This is why, like, I interviewed Jared Taylor, and I'm sure a lot of people know who this is.
	He literally said, the left is doing everything in their power to make the alt-right grow.
	They are the ones who are set, they're setting the dichotomy.
	Right, what we're going to talk about is race.
	And by the way, white people don't get the responsibility of the alt-right.
	Do they have no personal responsibility to not be racist?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I disagree with them.
	Oh, okay.
	But the problem is, you're being racist, and that's making people think, well, it's okay to be racist.
	I'm a white person.
	I'll join the white interest group.
	Oh, they're forced to join this white interest group.
	They feel like that.
	I feel like that.
	Don't they have responsibility to not be racist?
	Yeah, sure, but you're the ones being racist.
	You're setting the title.
	Gentlemen, the combat portion of this conversation is over.
	Oh, what did you say?
	The combat force is.
	We're going to have a fight.
	Oh, yeah.
	John, fine.
	Next question.
	Chadale, Sargon.
	Thanks for coming to Milwaukee.
	My question is actually for Tom, because as much as I love you, Sargon, I mean, I don't ever.
	You probably already know what my answers are.
	But no, my question is: do you not see how certain aspects of the social justice movement and that sort of thing do actively alienate people to the point where you're purity tested and oh, you're not good enough because this, this, and this, and where you can move and get accepted in a movement like the skeptics and like the right, where all you have to do is not agree with you?
	Yeah.
	Basically, like, do you not see that with how much you push people to form to one very specific line of ideology?
	Well, the movement that you're part of.
	Yeah, what do you think about that?
	But the people yelling at me that are his fans, they're not pushing me to agree with him.
	You don't think the people are yelling at me this entire time?
	They're not pushy at all.
	Okay, so anyway, no, I do recognize that, and that's something we didn't get to.
	I think there are plenty of people on both sides of every issue that I think are awful.
	I think there's plenty of SJWs.
	What's that?
	Hello, you pointed at me when you said the winner.
	Oh, no, I didn't, but sure, yeah.
	I think there are plenty of SJWs.
	I think we do, I think liberals in fight too much.
	And I think that's that is true.
	You're not liberals.
	You're non-liberals.
	I think that is true, and I think that is a reason that Republicans have an advantage because the people at Charlottesville and the moderates, they're all voting.
	They're all voting.
	And the Democrats, well, despite the fact that we won by 3 million votes, they're not voting enough in the they're not winning enough in the swing states.
	But yeah, no, there's crap behavior.
	I agree.
	I think I'll agree with Sargon that I think people have a personal responsibility to, rather than overreact and go to the alt-right, which he seems to suggest is a logical thing, like white nationalism.
	I think they should have the personal responsibility to, I don't know, rise up and be strong in the face of some people yelling at you on the internet, which I think you would agree with.
	I think what you mean is they have a personal responsibility to stand on their principles.
	Yeah, and to argue against that part of the left from the left, which is what I try to do.
	I've argued with far lefties on my show all the time.
	That's great.
	But the thing is, the problem is, the principles are of racial discrimination.
	And the question is just which direction is it heading in?
	And I disagree with this dichotomy entirely.
	This is why you and the alt right.
	That's fine.
	You're not on the left.
	So I don't care.
	Like, in my definition.
	You have now tackfeared me from the left.
	I'm no longer a real Muslim.
	If you think that white people are more discriminated against, I'm sorry, you're not.
	You're not.
	I don't know.
	That's the litmus test, is it?
	That's the litmus test.
	The liberal stance is that systemic discrimination is a big part.
	That's one big part of it.
	That's not the liberal stance.
	That's the Marxist stance.
	You are systematic people.
	That's Marxism in action.
	Next question.
	My question is for Thomas as well.
	First off, on your website, the James DeMar interview you're talking about, you link to what you quote as being the best scientific rebuttal of James DeMore, and the first article they cite says he's a racist and a fascist.
	That has a lengthy scientific explanation, so that's, I mean, that's misleading to say that's what it is.
	There's several scientists.
	That is all it says, but it goes into detail on why he's a fascist and a racist.
	That's all I'm saying.
	Okay.
	But my question is.
	I just want to make clear to everybody that that's not the source that I like.
	It has four or five or multiple scientists in the field.
	They have a breakdown.
	I don't link things that just say he's a fascist and say it's the best scientific source.
	I just want to make that clear to people.
	In the atheism community, we have a pretty long tradition going back to Voltaire, Hustler magazine criticizing Jerry Farwell, recently the Bible for gays.
	We have a pretty strong tradition of being vulgar and offensive to Christianity.
	I just wonder why social justice shouldn't get the shape treatment if we disagree with that.
	Because not all things are equal.
	We can look at what the context is.
	So if someone says, despite the straw man that Sargon paints of the SJW left and me personally, if someone says that.
	Everyone knows exactly what you're like, I don't have to.
	If someone says I'm an atheist and a Christian says that's offensive to me, they're full of shit.
	If someone is a victim of sexual abuse and they say someone tweeting, you know, say, I wouldn't even rape you, if they say that, if they say, wow, that's a really shitty thing to say to a victim of sexual assault and I don't think you should do that, you know, you can look at that and decide whether you think they're right to be offended by that.
	You are literally though the new moral censors.
	You've taken the place of the church.
	And now you're trying to censors.
	What am I censoring?
	What did I censor?
	Did you miss the harassment campaign to get me skeptical can shoot deplatforms?
	I didn't do that.
	I'm here.
	You're a lot of people.
	They're trying to use platform.
	Deplatform is not censorship.
	Yes, it is.
	There are a billion people.
	Yes, it is.
	It's absolutely a bad thing.
	There are a million people we can invite to talk.
	There are people who have your same views.
	Yes, I would debate Melissa Chen all fucking day.
	And I would talk about identity politics.
	We would talk about the invitement.
	I would be happy to do that because she doesn't say shitty things to vulnerable people.
	No, I didn't do agree to that.
	I'd be happy to do that.
	If you're so bad about it, you should have disagreed.
	You are actively censoring people.
	Next question.
	I don't have it.
	The same night, by the way, that he said he lobbied for and started a group to remove certain classes from colleges.
	He's saying I'm the censorious one.
	I didn't do that.
	Unbelievable.
	That's a lie.
	That's a straw man.
	You accuse me of everything you're guilty of.
	That's so weird.
	Literally, that's.
	When did I start a petition to remove classes?
	No, that's not.
	You're still lying.
	I didn't do that.
	Oh, suspend.
	Oh, okay.
	Congratulations.
	Suspend classes.
	Okay, look.
	John Petson.
	Your entire argument is relying on the difference between suspend and ban.
	Okay.
	You think there's no difference?
	Gentlemen.
	I declare to you.
	Maybe the next question will be on this exact same topic.
	And then it'll just roll over.
	I didn't hear yet.
	No, I didn't hear anything.
	Thank you guys.
	First of all, if you sorry, first of all, if you don't want student debt, just get a STEM degree.
	That's what I did.
	I couldn't hear what you're doing.
	I can't hear you, sorry.
	Get a STEM degree.
	That's all you need to do.
	Oh, yeah, good, cool.
	Second, I am actually Catholic.
	I believe in God and everything.
	And I have to deal with cognitive dissonance when I talk about, say, religion or stuff.
	So I don't get in those conversations with people.
	How do both you guys deal with cognitive dissonance in your own way, where you kind of say, I have to segregate this topic from talking to this people because I just have this cognitive dissonance?
	I don't have any cognitive dissonance because my beliefs are consistent.
	What about you, Thomas?
	You don't have any cognitive dissonance because your medium is to take the stupidest people you can find, stop their videos when it's convenient to you, and yell about them.
	So that's easy, yes.
	I also tweeted I wouldn't rate Jess Phillips.
	You better bring him up.
	Yeah.
	So you have a.
	It's very easy to not have cognitive dissonance when you're not challenged, when you have a group of fellow misogynists who think it's a problem.
	Why didn't you challenge me?
	No, actually, I do congratulate you for at least doing this debate.
	I mean, it's a home crowd, but I do congratulate you for you.
	Not if the internet was anything to go by.
	If anything, I'm the interloper here.
	I've invaded a safe space, a holy of holies.
	I'm like Pompey going into Jerusalem.
	You're like a Pharisee who's upset about it.
	Go on.
	Sorry, next question.
	All right.
	We have this issue going on in the UW system right now where we have falling enrollment.
	Enrollment at the institution I work at is down.
	And we had this retention meeting on Friday where we tried to identify the population that was most at risk of retention, of dropping out.
	And it happens to be white men from Minnesota.
	Cool.
	My question is, and I think I understand where Sargon's coming from on this, but my question is: what is the affirmative action solution to this?
	Why would there be an affirmative action solution to it?
	I think if you've identified a systemic problem or if you've identified a reason, that would be the next step.
	Find out why.
	If you have a policy idea for that, like maybe you need a program to try to engage these white men to be able to keep them, I don't know, maybe disciplinary, whatever the cause is, I would say, okay, cool.
	You don't think there should be affirmative action for white men who are dropping out?
	Well, if they're dropping out more, I would try to target the reason why they're dropping out.
	If they're being admitted, like if there's discrimination and admission, I would absolutely be against that.
	And if they say to you it's discrimination and propaganda against you.
	Oh, it's not.
	It's absolutely not that.
	Well, you have to look at that.
	You haven't asked them.
	You literally, you just have to.
	No, we have to look.
	I've looked at this issue.
	If the individual one says, look, I was reading this bulletin.
	They were like, don't turn up if you're a white man, which literally happened in a British university.
	White men are banned from a certain meeting.
	If they're saying, look, it's this kind of racial and sexual discrimination that I'm against and I want to leave, what's your solution?
	Title IX.
	Get rid of privacy and mission.
	I would want to look at what the reason is.
	I would be highly skeptical that that would be the reason.
	I think the reason, because I've looked at this issue a little bit, it has a lot to do with disciplinary reasons.
	It has to do with your favorite thing, personal choice.
	Aren't they just choosing to leave?
	I thought it was okay.
	People choose to leave.
	Well, that's okay then, because black people are choosing not to go to university.
	No, they're not choosing not to go to universities.
	They don't have the resources at the schools because we fucked them over.
	Okay, so now white people are feeling attacked and propagandized by the institution.
	Because white people and black people are not equal in the system.
	It's okay to do it for one but not to learn.
	This is why I'm saying you have no privilege.
	It is not the same.
	Gentlemen, we're going down the same route.
	Now you're a racial subject.
	Next question, please.
	Well, sorry, my question.
	240.
	See you guys.
	Hi, all right.
	Come on, come on, come on.
	Come on, come on.
	Hi, Carl.
	I actually don't have anywhere better to be, so...
	Can someone, can I get another bottle of water?
	Take your beer!
	No, I was drinking.
	I've got a really bad hangover.
	So I don't want to be it right now, thanks.
	Yes, exactly right.
	It was a good beer, too.
	It's actually good timing because we have time for one more question.
	And a two to three minute answer, I guess.
	And let's do that.
	I do do long videos.
	I could go on for a while.
	Hi, Carl.
	Hey.
	I guess I was going to ask my question to Tom, but he's not here, so.
	I'll try and fill in.
	Is it right for us to, I guess, judge other countries and cultures with our, I guess, our culture?
	With our moral standards?
	I agree.
	I mean, who else's moral standards are going to judge them by?
	That's why I was.
	Yeah, I think so.
	I don't think that we should sit there and go, well, it's just their culture that they, oh, I don't know, stone atheists, chuck gays off roofs, chop women's private parts up.
	You know, I'm all for judging other cultures by our standards because our standards are, frankly, better than theirs.
	There's still three minutes left.
	Dimitri, there's still three minutes left in the time.
	Yes.
	What's up, Sargon?
	Pleasure to finally meet you in person.
	was hoping to throw a bone to thomas but anyway um so my question to you is that this is something i actually brought up with you a few months back um does okay so here's the issue i see here at this debate tonight You both are speaking past one another.
	The issue is that, from my perspective, Thomas was arguing a specific definition, you're arguing a different definition.
	So this problem, I think, is because the MAGA movement or the Econoclass movement or the skeptic movement or whatever you want to call yourselves, you have no manifesto.
	You're an amoeba with no framework.
	Now, I've brought this up with other skeptics.
	This is my question.
	I pose it to you again.
	Does the rebel or the economic, whatever you want to call yourselves, need a MAGA movement?
	Because I've looked at you guys for 10 months now.
	I cannot for the life of me figure out what the hell you guys want in terms of demonstrable political objectives.
	Okay, well, no, that's a good question.
	But that's a good question.
	I mean, maybe someone should write a manifesto, but I don't ever want to be the kind of person who does write a manifesto.
	But honestly, you can just read Locke and Mill, and then you'll see exactly what I'm after.
	I just want people to stop being arbitrarily restrained in any way, shape, or form.
	I don't care how white they are.
	I don't care how male they are.
	I don't care how straight they are or not.
	You know, these are not categories by which someone's liberties should be infringed.
	And is it really that hard to apply that?
	And hate speech laws.
	Okay, someone said something nasty on Twitter.
	Okay.
	You know, in Britain, hundreds of people a year go to jail over this.
	I'm telling you, never accept a hate speech law.
	It is the thin end of the wedge and you'll never get rid of them.
	Don't do it, I promise.
	Last question, 244.
	Perfect.
	Thank you everyone.
	Well that was rousing.
	I really hate hate speech laws.
	I'm sorry.
	Dimitri, I was going to give him one more minute or one more question.
	All right.
	First of all, welcome to Cream City Sargon.
	It's a pleasure to have you.
	I was going to ask.
	Earlier Thomas was talking about how intersectionalism gets further towards the individual by identifying these different identities.
	And I was thinking that really that's only true, it's really a reductionist and that it's only true insofar as when you're coming from a place where you already only have oppressors and oppressed and simply classifying oppressors as oppressed.
	And he tried to claim that this isn't a Marxist idea.
	Do you think that when you talk to people particularly farther to the left than say like blue dog Democrats, but like people that are particularly socialists, do you think that they consciously try and gaslight people on our side or do you think it's just like poisoning the well from their like?
	I wouldn't want to presume like any individual's motives if I can't even identify the individual.
	But I mean it is certainly a Marxist philosophy and they do dichotomize the world by oppressor and oppressed.
	And if you're in the majority group, you must necessarily be an oppressor.
	But the thing is, the alternative is to have, even in their own philosophy, the alternative is to have the minority group oppressing the majority group.
	That's what they want.
	This is usually termed an aristocracy.
	We have to resist this.
	We can't possibly accept this kind of framework.
	And I don't agree anyway that white people are just oppressing black people by their mere existence.
	It's ridiculous.
	Thank you to both of our speakers.
	I'm sure the Twitters are a buzz or whatever.
	So we're going to take a 10-minute break and then move to a less controversial topic, which is Scientology.
	So we'll see you back here.
	Thank you.

▲