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.  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.   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.   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?  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.  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 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.    He's now, one of them is now free.   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.  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?  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.  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'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.  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.  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.  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.  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?   A police officer will search their vehicle and then contraband will turn up.  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.  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.  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.  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.   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.  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.  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.  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?  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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...  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.  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.  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.  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.  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?  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  I'm saying if racism is the original sin of white people, which I have to say.    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.  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.  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.   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 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.  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 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.   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.  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 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.  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?  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.  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.  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.   Wait, can we please calm down? Actually, I have to go through my pay-ball transactions.   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.  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.  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.  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.  We, okay, so this is a chance for you to do it.  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.  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.  They are not living in these black communities.  So I don't even understand why they're doing this. Like this is just absurd.  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.  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.   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?  We wanted to debate black people. You're white. You're not a representative of the black community.   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.  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.    They call every single blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Well, you're trying to say the nation of Islam represents black America.  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.  You have to identify problems before you can talk about any solutions. You can't talk about solutions and problems on the same breath.  It was a conversation on what is the problem right now? Is there or is there not systemic racism?  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.  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.  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.  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?  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?  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?  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 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.  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?  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?  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?  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.   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, no, no, no, I'm teasing you. It's good, I appreciate it.  That's nice. I met you in person.  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.  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.   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?  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.  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.   What have we been talking about right now?  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.  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.   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.  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.  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.  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.  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, 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?  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.   That's because the left stole identity politics from the right. I'm not a conservative. I'm an identitarian.   You sound like a liberal to me, buddy.   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.  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.  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?  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.  I would also like to say that like the fact that you are not familiar with any of these studies is really disappointing.  Like these are the first things that come up. It seems like you