that thanks to centuries of history and a deep-seated attachment to the status quo that conflicts with outwardly stated values of equality, according to a 2011 study published in the Perspectives on Psychological Science, white people on aggregate, not all white people, but on aggregate view racism as a zero-sum game. Such the decreases in perceived bias against black people over the past six decades are associated with increases. Hey, hold on, guys. I think there was no mute.  Oh, man. Wow. No, I was trying to. I was trying to knock it out. Some people are saying they can hear, some people are saying they can't. I don't know. Oh, wow. I stopped the time. I can now get to redo the sit-ins I've loved. Oh. So the entire thing? It might as well. Who's way too loud? Everybody or what? Let's just make sure everyone's hearing before he starts, because... Guys, this...  It's okay. It's okay. It happens to me. It's not easy. Think about CNN.  So sorry, jingles. All right. I'm going to reset it at the time. So I'm starting completely over, right? Yeah, that's fine. Maybe make a little succinct. My audience saw it. I'm not seeing anybody saying the audio is bad now. So I think we can start over now. Okay. Starting the timer at your first word. All right.  All right. If it wasn't apparent from a cursory glance at the discourse surrounding critical race theory in the news and the never-ending flow of toxic sewage that is social media, most of the debate on the topic is using CRT as a stand-in target to advance, via attack or defense, their view of America's path forward. CRT is not merely saying that racism is bad, nor is it a cloak and dagger shield for the destruction of Western civilization. And you should ignore anyone trying to reduce it down to either of those poultry explanations. Thus, most people lack any meaningful understanding of what critical race theory actually is, instead blindly attacking or defending both the concept and the legislation removing it based on willful ignorance and a need to take a side in the culture proxy war. CRT is a broad lens of legal and societal analysis that forms collectively amongst many scholars and over many years. Is everyone hearing me before I continue? Yes, they're saying they're hearing you. Okay. That said, according to the authors of the textbook cited by most critics by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefankic, as well as the American Bar Association, there are about four key tenets that consistently show up in CRT inspired conversations. One, recognition that race is not biologically real, but is socially constructed and yet socially significant. Two, acknowledgement that racism is a normal feature of society and is embedded within systems and institutions like the legal system that replicate racial inequality. Three, rejection of popular understandings about racism, such as arguments that confine racism to a few bad apples or that racism must be intentional and explicit. CRT recognizes that it is the systemic nature of racism that bears primary responsibility for reproducing racial inequality. And four, the recognition of the relevance of people's everyday lives to scholarship and embracing the lived experiences of people of color. All of these tenets can be supported by mountains of both historical and empirical data. But at its core, CRT is a lens of interpretation, one that places the role of race and society front and center. Opposition to the teaching of CRT in school, therefore, is at best a declaration that race should not take front and center stage in any point in a K-12 setting. And at worst, a declaration that it should not be discussed at all. All accusations of anti-white racism must be analyzed alongside the fact that, thanks to centuries of history and a deep-seated attachment to the status quo that conflicts with outwardly stated values of equality. According to a 2011 study published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, white people on aggregate view racism as a zero-sum game. Such the decreases in perceived bias against black people over the past six decades are associated with increases in perceived bias against white people, a relationship not observed by black people. This bleeds into politics in that despite supposedly living in a post-racism society, whites who are made salient of the fact that we are set to become a minority by 2042 tend to endorse more conservative policy positions. The best explanation seems to implicate group status threat as the mechanism for why this might be. Indeed, whites high in salient racial identity overwhelmingly supported and support Trump as he seemed to be the candidate most poised to halt the culture shift that had nothing to do with race. This feeling is perhaps the best summed up by then U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions in 2009. Empathy for one party is always prejudice against another. When your way of life is considered normal, when your race or your gender or your sexuality is seen as default, it's very easy to misconstrue the introduction of other perspectives as an attack on your way of life. And that brings me to the notion that CRT is somehow indoctrination when taught to children. In my home state of Kentucky, the social studies curriculum introduces the concepts of community responsibility and the importance of rules in kindergarten. And by the time they exit elementary school, they've learned about colonization, slavery and the circumstances of voluntary and involuntary migrants to this country. A school curriculum that glosses over the role of slavery in the past and its impact on the present is at best incomplete. When it forbids the discussion entirely or only allows the perspective that racism is a thing of the past is nothing short of propaganda. Critics of CRT including Donald Trump point to its divisiveness as a reason to keep it out of schools because they don't want the norms of society questioned or the moral greatness of America challenged. That America was inarguably founded on white supremacy and that the attitudes and values of our founders perpetuated abhorrent conditions for non-white people in this country that are still felt today is either downplayed to preserve the idolization of said founders or ignored altogether by people who have the gall to say that America was founded as a free nation. From what I've seen that's the core opposition, that's the core of the opposition to CRT in general and CRT in schools in particular. The horrible anti-white racism shown in the assignments or seminars that make the rounds almost always amount to whether the fairness of one's lot in life might have something to do with historical and current racial hierarchies and whether or not white people might have a motivated reason to perpetuate that hierarchy to some degree or another. Pay attention to how the banning of CRT in schools has coincided with an expansion of what CRT entails. According to self-proclaimed CRT expert and licensed massage therapist James Lindsay, if your kid's school is teaching about white privilege, systemic racism, racial equity or racial justice, it is teaching critical race theory. If this becomes the case, the American ideals of freedom, justice and equality all become meaningless because they get to be defined by those threatened ideas, by a group of people who sadly believe that racism is over and that white's becoming a minority spells doom for the nation. CRT is an important perspective that provides more value existing even than not. It is a lens that places race front and center, not the end all be all claim to understand the entire universe. Like any other lens, its use can be limited or poorly executed, but being exposed to and contemplating perspectives other than our own, other than our own is not anti-white or anti-western and especially not anti-American. In fact, it's about as American as it gets. And that's my time. All right. AST, do you want to go ahead and take over? Yeah. So I think Django's touched on everything that I was going to say. So I'm just going to defer to the other team. Okay, sounds good. Wait, wait, wait. Before you do that, let me go ahead and take care of my housekeeping relevancy. You know what? Oh, I'm so sorry, guys. I have lost my notes here. It's one let everybody know. If you have any questions or superchats, please tag them at modern day debate if they're unpaid and we will add them to the list. If we can get to them, superchats will have priority. One second. I'm just going to type in this real quick. Okay. Remember to attack the argument and not the person. Ad hominems and personal attacks will not be read. We are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. We want everybody to feel welcome no matter what your views are. Our guests are linked in the description. And if you're listening via a podcast, you can find their links there as well. Don't forget to hit the subscribe button. We have a lot more live debates coming. You don't want to miss that. And with that, we will go ahead and kick it over to Rob Norr and Conspiracy Castle. The floor is yours. Well, it looks like I'm, it looks like I'm going first. Well, I'm primetime 99 Alex Stein. I'm on the grind all the time. And let me tell you my first problem with CRT or critical race theory. Of course, racism exists.  You know, that that is insane. But with the most insane thing that critical race theory states is that race isn't real. And that it's a social construct. When you just know genetically and biologically, that's true. That's the same mindset as saying a person that transition a man that transitions to a woman should be able to compete against a female that he's not the biological same sex as. I mean, it's the same idea as, you know, going against our biological science or going against objective facts. And we're throwing those to the wind. So that's like one of the big things, the fact that race isn't real, we shouldn't teach that. So that's kind of my biggest issue, but it goes more into that. See, it's based in Marxism. And the idea of Marxism is there's no individualism. It's all communalism. And so when you really think about when we were in school, we had to read a book called Brave New World. We had to read a book called 1984. And in those books, basically in the future, it is your the world is such a communalistic state, you can't even feel love because love is the idea of possession or ownership. And that's what critical race theory does. It takes away our individualism in our ownership. And that's the main problem that I have with it, because what it does is it focuses people that are victims of intersectionality. Now, what is intersectionality?     And let's say she was at a black rights movement.  So what happens is we find the victims of intersectionality, and we put them at the forefront. It's not this style of equity or equality. What it is is it's the absolute upside down world that tells you that race isn't real. And it creates this sort of class and social structure that's taught in schools that let's be real. We already know stereotypes. People believe in stereotypes. We already have preconceived notions of people.  That exists. That's not, that's not my issue. I do think we do need to address racism in the world. I don't want to sit here and be like, oh my God, there's nobody that's mean to everybody. But the idea that you're going to fix it by teaching kids Marxist values that are based in the idea of conflict theory, what that does is that positions us against one another. So it's going to create a future where all we do is hate one another because it's based in Marxist conflict theory. So you have to think about that idea. In the future, if you actually want a society that is some sort of utopia where everybody's getting along, then creating social classes and saying that race isn't real is like saying two plus two doesn't equal four. You're actually living in the upside down clown world. And that's the problem with the whole idea of critical race theory for me is it just, it takes objective facts and throws those to the wind in the idea of communalism. So it takes away the individualism of the person. I've said this multiple times yet to realize that's big deal to me. I'm primetime 99. I'm one of the most individualistic guys you know, I'm the king of individualism. So if I could ever be a student in this day and age, or I would have to be persecuted just because I'm a white male, and I'm saying it's not even that it's anti white. It's not even that I'm not even trying to say that's why I feel so demonized. I'm not. But at the end of the day, even they say in their own literature, that is the person at the top of the intersectionality section is the white male.   I don't think that's fair. That doesn't put like Martin Luther King says to judge people by the content of their character. Now you're judging us by groups of people, which is not fair.   I'm not just saying that, but it's unfair. What it does is it creates social structures and lumps in people that are unfairly grouped in and it throws the baby out with the bathwater.  That actually makes people think, Oh, well, why would I want to be nice? Why would I why would I even want to help out people if there are already going to think I'm racist? That means they're always going to have their guard up. They're always going to be defensive. And that's what it's meant to do because it's based in Marx's conflict theory. And the idea of you have to change the universe or change the world themselves. That's why it's most it's created out of these indoctrination programs in these colleges like Yale in these Ivy League stuff, the same schools that were the Rockefeller and Rothschild in order to make students that were just basically slaves that just were, you know, good order of followers. That's what they want. They don't want to create creativity or individualism. What they want you to do is they want you to be a slave.  And what critical race theory does is now it puts a bunch of African Americans and people that may not have gone to college and even puts them in that situation. So now that they can exploit even in all the races they do with the schooling, that is just insane. And look, listen, all I have to say is this when it comes to the student lunch, Joe Biden's not going to lift any of those. If you don't think that these colleges and their endowments are a manipulation machines, then I'm just telling you these schools are basically evil organizations. And I've talked over my time, but that's six minutes. And there you go. I'll defer to you, Ron. All right. Thanks so much. So first we have to ask what are schools for schools are to teach education and basic curriculum of things like mathematics, history, language, reading, and we have agreed on other things like we used to do shop class, which we sorely miss, other things like that. Critical race theory at its core claims that anyone who disagrees with them is acting any form of racism. This is not science or education. So the neat little trick that they've set up is if you disagree with the premises that they've set, then you're acting as races. And in fact, they've set all of these dichotomies up that it doesn't linearly make sense to listen to, for example, as we'll get to throughout the debate. You're considered culturally appropriating if you want to do things that you see in people of color's culture. But if you don't express enough interest in people of color in their culture, then you're considered races for being standoffish. Similarly, if you object to the teachings that you've seen critical race theory, according to them, that's just more evidence that you're racist. And that's one of the fundamental reasons that we shouldn't allow this to be taught in school, because it is a religious cult. It is something that seeks to only go after people as heretics, and it's non falsifiable. You can't point to date the sets. You can't point to other arguments because they say, all of that's deflecting from racist, which means you're racist. That's what they'll say. The other reason to reject this is because it is in fact racist. And yes, it is racist to people that they consider oppressors. I do think that Alex was correct that this does come from a sort of Marxist tradition. And you don't even have to use the word Marxist. It seeks to identify the world as oppressors versus oppressed, and it takes away individual agency. Now, this is bad if you're the group that's considered oppressor, in this case, white people, because you're considered that nothing you could do can escape you from this role as an oppressor. You're no longer an individual. And you could see in the definition that was given by our opponents, intent doesn't matter. That's right.  And you're engaged in a system that is racist. And you could never escape that. The most prominent critical race theory author in the world today is Robin D'Angelo, who wrote the book, White Fragility, also in the Abram Kennedy. Both of them claim things like that to reject the idea that all white people are racist and live in this race society is actually just more evidence of racism.  And we prescribe specific instructions for how those people must act based on their skin color and another form of racism. We also see that it's racist towards people of color as well though, because it operates in this form of a bigotry of low expectations. What makes us human is the decisions we make in our personal agencies. One of the most inhumane things you could do is stop treating people as an individual with agency and instead treat them as a group that are perpetual victims that could never overcome that victimhood status because the system we live in that's being taught in critical race theory says that this racism will be ever-prevent, prevalent. So I just want to go through, there's two things that we need to look at this first. Are the claims of critical race theory accurate? I will argue that they're not accurate, including the claim that race isn't biologically real, including the claim that we have to reject the intentionality of racism. It sounds good on face value, but when you look at how it's practiced, what we see is that it's actually used to sort of malice struggle sessions where we force students as little as kindergarten to admit their racism and their shame. We tell them that they have to allow people of color to yell and scream at them. We tell them that if they get upset by this, that's more evidence that they're racist. These are the ways these things play out in actual practice. And what we'll see probably from many people that endorse critical race theory is they employ the no-true Scotsman's fallacy. Oh no, no, no, that's not what I mean when I talk about it. The truth is there are litany of definitions we could give for critical race theory and we could talk about those specific definitions, but we ought to talk about how it plays out in practice, because if we have a system that is justifying racism and going after people in these ways, then it needs to be rejected on face value. The other thing we need to ask is, is critical race theory used well? Is it working? It is not, as I'll provide evidence that it actually increased division. As critical race theory has been promulgated more in academia, we've seen the division increase from both whites and from people of color. Lastly, there are certain things that don't make sense. For example, if this was a white system set up to benefit white people, why are Asians and other ethnicities outperforming white people so significantly? It would seem that if this racism was ever prevalent and stuck created by people in positions of power to maintain that power, it's doing a very poor job of which. How much time do I have left? I'll read a bit of an article five. We got two minutes, I think. Oh, excellent. We can also see that when we talk about the need to reject white fragility and whiteness that it's often employed in ways that is racist again towards minorities. For example, the National Museum of American History talked about in their employment of critical race theory that we need to reject whiteness. Some of the things they defined as whiteness was the individual self-reliance, independence is highly valued, a nuclear family, emphasis on objective, rational, linear thinking, cause and effect relationships, hard work is key to success. If you should work before you play, being on time, respecting authority, planning for the future, this is horribly offensive and racist to people of color. If you want to work hard and have a family, that's engaging in whiteness. And it's these sorts of things that actually seek to harm the very people that critical race theory claims to be trying to help. The last thing I'll read is a little bit from how critical race theory is being employed in Portland right now. I'm spending the T. R. Toulouse School District. Let's see. About 10 seconds. Educated. Oh, only 10 seconds. I'll wait then. I'll just yield the rest of my time. No problem. Okay. Thank you guys so much for those opening statements. And we're about to kick it into open dialogue. Just want to quickly remind everyone to again, if you're going to send in a super chat or a question for the debaters, please remember to attack the arguments and not the debaters and to respect the moderators in the chat. And again, their links are in the description. So please smash that like button and subscribe. And again, the floor is all yours, guys. Go ahead and have your open discussion. Okay. So if you don't mind if I get asked first, one of the things just listening to you talk to angles, give that explanation. And in my reading of critical race theory, do you think that racism is always prevalent? Always prevalent in some form or another. But then again, if you go by the definition that racism must be explicit that you have to like have an actual malice against somebody. But I think in a lot of circumstances, the bar for racism should be set a lot lower. Historical circumstances are real. Time is linear and certain things that have happened in the past that all of us hopefully were considered objectively racist still manifest themselves today in material circumstances by a wide variety of people. Okay. So if it's, is it just prevalent amongst white people and white societies? Or is this same sort of racism also prevalent in any society that has power structures? I'm sure if there's a, if there's a society with a history of racial categorization or ethnic separation or ethnic hierarchies, I'm sure that would exist as well. But no, I'm only familiar with America. Okay. If it's true and critical race theory does propose it, there's either one or two explanations. It's that white people are uniquely in the ability of always being racist, or if it's that all structures will exist like this, how is your very teaching and embracing of this not encouraging actual more racism? This is what it is, which I can explain just briefly, if I could explain briefly, because what you've done is you admitted that by 2044, whites will no longer be the majority. But wouldn't that just mean that the new group that will be the majority will actually employ the exact same systems? Even if it's not employed in the exact same ways or to the severity of inevitably they will develop power structures that will result in air in group preference, maintaining illegitimate power over others. So isn't it true then that whites will then just be people of color? And if so, when you teach white people this, how do you expect them to react? Hold on, let's go to step that one at a time.  Both of you think that race is biologically real. This is just scientifically incorrect. And we'll get into that in a second. But one of the one of the purported like tenets of critical race theory is that by that race is not biologically real. And therefore, white people are not inherently anything. We are products of a social environment. And it doesn't have to be explicit.  That bar for racism is very, very, very hard to meet. And it's very easy to skirt under if you know what you're doing.  When I make that, that's dude, Hakim Elijah one is a different race than me. That's not racist. That's real.  Let me interject here. Let me interject here. So critical race theory is is descriptive, not prescriptive. Critical race theory says that this is how things are, not how they should be. Me and Marshawn Lynch are not the same race. Do we need to go into three minute intervals? No, we're going to 30 or three minute intervals. No. But just just everybody, stop. Everybody, everybody, everybody, everybody stop. I'm stopping the climber. I'm stopping the timer. I'm stopping the timer. Everybody stop, everybody stop. Everybody stop.  Everybody stop. Everybody stop. Okay. Who's still talking? AST. Chill. Stop. Stop. Stop. Everybody stop. Everybody stop. Stop. We got to stop talking over each other. We're going to do that. I think you might be behind. I think you're, I think you might be listening to the, to the, to the video, not the call. This Zoom call. Yeah. We weren't talking when you're yelling all that stuff. I'm sorry. I'm listening to live too. Okay. My bad. I'm messing up too. Okay. Are we good? Are we? Are we good? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We don't need three minute intervals or anything. Just go. Okay. Okay. Sorry. Yeah. I was just going to say, I see it. It's also, it also does talk about how racism is inevitable. It talks about this. For example, when you read a lot of Robin D'Angelo and what she writes, she says that the struggle will never be over. That saying that we could just obtain goals and therefore we need to avoid the struggle is itself a form of racism. So this racism will always exist and it exists in everything to varying degrees. So it's not just as simple as saying, well, this system is the way it is, but it'll sometime it could possibly change. It can't change. It could only get better, but it could never be solved. That is a core tenant of critical race theory. So this is something that's going to absolutely destroy this discussion and anyone's going forward. So you said you kind of, you said that we're going to employ the no true Scotsman fallacy and all that's not critical race theory. But no, how can I physically answer? How can I intellectually answer for someone else? I can tell you what I think the CRT is. I can tell you what the tenants that I agree with and I do agree with most of them. That's all I can do. And by the same token, you saying that that thing in Portland or that or whatever. No, that's the true, that's the true Scotsman of CRT. Again, we cannot have a productive conversation. All right, let's, let's talk one on one. Let's talk about our own opinions and stop asking each other to answer for like representative. But again, like, but again, this is something that you see. How can we have a conversation if we can't agree on what the terms mean? So what we should do is look at how it's employed in the way that it's employed in the real world, right? So saying, oh, well, I disagree with all the ways that it's employed in the probably hundreds of examples I could bring up. I disagree with all those, but my critical race theory is different. No, we should look at how it's being employed. That's why these law, that's why this is a topic because we're starting to pass laws that say we reject this being taught because they're seeing how it's being taught. And there's a pushback, including from the liberal left, particularly in the K through 12 saying this is insane, like lining up kindergartners and telling them actually linear thinking in mathematics is racist. And that you shouldn't have to show your worker. That's a form of racism, which I could provide all the evidence that these are things that have been suggested. It is a form of racism and it's destroying education. So why should we ignore all that? Because you define it differently. And I'll say real quick, even with your current definition, I can show you based on your definition, how it actually leads to that being taught that way. So the definition you've given is also cool. Oh, cool. Because my definition is supported by mountains of, like I said, historical and empirical data. And I'm happy to be in my position. Okay. For example, you say, you say that the lived part of the tenant of critical race theory is, well, first, you just on the biology really quick. I know. I'm really, really interested in how you think race and biology are real. Sure. Sure. Paleontologists could look at, could look at bones from thousands of years ago and determine one of three major ethnicities arrays. Cool. What are those categories come from? They come from biology. Do they say that, Hey, based on where you came from, like in your ancestry, like we can like sort of guess you, do you think that like there's a distinct biological separation between black and white? And like, I don't know, Asian. Think about all the other species that have, I mean, you're telling me you're, you honestly really believe that we're all the same.  I'm not trying. There's more genetic diversity within African populations as there is between African populations and European populations. That is a biological genetic fact. I'm sorry. That's fake science. No, it doesn't hurt my science. Science? Yeah. That's not true. Really? Look it up. I mean, I just did. Can you hear me? Can you turn on the slow mode in the chat, please? I'm not anti. I mean, I don't, I would love to be black. I'm a culture vulture, dude.  I'm not some freaking, I'm just saying critical race theory. You're certainly not a geneticist. Listen, I don't see how what you said is responsive to me. If it was true that this was all socially construct. Could you just explain to me how paleontologists will be able to look at a skin? For 5,000 years ago and identify differences between one race and another. And black people have an extra bone in their foot. But black people have an extra bone in their foot. I don't have that bone. Okay. Because the categorizations that we employ to arbitrarily decide, if we decide, okay, black people tend to come from this place, Asian people arbitrarily come from this place. White people tend to arbitrarily come from this place, depending on how far you go back in your ancestry. All of us are going to come from Africa anyway. So yeah, I'm not a black person.  I'm not going to come from Africa anyway. So yeah, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing. And I don't like this. Like it's seemingly conservative definition of social construct to mean it's not real, but the arbitrary set points of those categorizations are, like I said, arbitrary. So why was, so was Obama black? And the answer to that is, yeah, we all considered in black, even though he was half black, half white, but we considered in black because race is a social construct. We can see, we can see that it's not, I think clearly from the, but it doesn't matter. We can move on. Okay. You can just continue to agree to disagree. But we can move on. Like for example, the lived experiences. So we have to employ one of your four definitions was the intent. Oh, no, no, no. I gotta say this. I gotta say this. So Rachel Dolezelle, she's the fake race fader. You know, Rachel Dolezelle. No, I have to, you know, do you know who Rachel Dolezelle is? Rachel Dolezelle. Okay. So, so Rachel Dolezelle identified as black. And so since socially, since she was constructed socially as black, was she actually black or was she white?  I'd love to have a conversation about that. I think that's an interesting. Yes. White or black. Was she wider black, bro? I don't know. I think it's a really interesting conversation.  Rachel Dolezelle born to both white parents.   That's all I need to know. But go ahead.    That shows you how you're not basing objective facts.   I apologize. That's just absurd, dude. To say, we're going to set up a microphone. That's true. A microphone is not set up that well, but I'm not a tech geek. I'll just tell you this much. Rachel Dolezelle is two white parents. She's not black, but you are so insane. Did I say that she was black? Or did I think you just would just skirt it? You wouldn't admit that she's white. You just did that. It could be an interesting conversation.  You won't admit that. Is she wider? She's so sorry that you're so opposed to like critical thinking. I'm just saying you can't admit that she's white. You're not based in reality, dude. You can't even admit that Rachel Dolezelle faked it. She had to apologize. So she would even say that it's not a social construct. So I'm just saying you can't even admit that. It just shows you that you're intellectually dishonest. No. Okay. If I can, if I could bring this, if I could talk about this. So one of the, you want to answer it.  If I may, when we look at the idea of the fourth characterization of your definition says that we have to identify with the lived experiences of people of color. So I think the point that my partner is trying to make here is how can we determine what is a lived experience of a person of color? If everyone could, if race isn't socially, it's only socially constructed. So the reason that that part's in there is because when you get into the nitty gritty of how this is practiced, people will say things like this. I was pulled over by the police because it was black. I was black or someone asked me if I worked at Walmart because I'm black. They asked me to grab something from a shelf, which famously, I believe Michelle Obama claimed at one point. And when you point out, wait a minute, there's a litany of other reasons they could have thought that they'll say, what is a lived experience of a black person? It's more important. But the problem is one, that's bad for reasons we'll get to in a second.  How do we know who's inherently racist? What these structures are? What do you think socially constructed means? I want both of you to answer that because. Dude, I think it did socially constructed means Rachel Dole was born from two white parents and she can put on black makeup and diet. So she's socially constructed. It's basically how society views your social standing. That's it. It's nature versus nurture. So it's a nature around her. And that's why she did it. So she loves black culture. So she pretended to be black. She's not black. Dude, you can't even admit that Rachel's all. Dolazelle is not black. Dude. So you don't even have any leg to stand on.  You're like in loony tunes, but Rachel Dolazelle has two white parents. I think that's super rich for someone who just rejected a true statement about genetics, like not even. Dude, you rejected a true statement that she both of her parents are white. She's not black. You won't even admit it. You won't even admit it.  You won't even stand behind what you say. It's just you spit this psycho babble out. You don't even stand by it. It's just absurd. Okay, Rob. Rob, since he's very upset, can you define what you think socially constructed means? Sure. Socially constructed means that there's not a biological reality and instead society using arbitrary markers have determined definitions of things. Cool. I actually agree with that. But does that mean socially constructed things don't have enormous impact on our society? No, it wouldn't mean that. But the problem is we often claim things. You see this happen on the left a lot. People often claim things are socially constructed when they're not. And it's problematic to do so because, for example, if I were to talk, there's all sorts of things that just don't jive with this that are contentious with each other, right? So for example, if I were to say, ah, we're going to dole out additional farm aid to people based on their skin color because we need some form of reparation because this country is historically treated people of color poorly. And someone says, I agree. And I'm a person of color because there is no genetic identifier to what a person of color is. It's just arbitrary rules constructed by society. And I reject the arbitrage nature of how they've constructed these definitions and choose to define myself as else. So now no one can have an authentic lived experience as a person of color because anyone who chooses to be a victim and to be otherwise would say, yes, I've basically had the experience of a person of color. And this matters because we could see that according to the definition that you gave, right? The idea is this system has been promulgated by white people in order to entrench white people at the top. But the problem is white people are something like 13th by every metric that we use to determine success in this country. Let's at least agree on this. The founding of the United States in 1776. That was founded by white people for white people, right? We at least agree on that. Those were white supremacists by our definitions. They entrenched white supremacy and they founded the Constitution. They said, if you are not white, you are not a citizen of this nation.  Can we at least agree on that? I believe racism is real. I'll give you that. Right. So what I would say is there were definitely racist beliefs and there were racist practices that were written into our laws, but the foundational idea of our founding or the idea of our foundational documents was one of people being created equal and focused on the individual. See, this is what I don't like. There's no truth in fallacy that you're saying that wasn't real America. That wasn't the real American ideas. No, dude. American ideas or whatever. Nobody said that. But again, what we're saying is that the way it was practically like, and this is constantly what you'll see. So all of the things we can talk about how absurd and nonsensical this position is and now it results in real racism and sort of this religious indoctrination. The defense will always be these following two things. The two things will be no true Scotsman and it will be, but racism happened in the past. Therefore we're justified. No one's articulating that racism didn't happen in the past. So, so he keeps going back to this, this religious indoctrination. And I want to, I want, I want you to define religion for me real quick. Sure. So in this sense, what we're talking about with religion is a belief that is non-falsifiable. That you believe that you have to is an ultimate truth that you have to play for. And how is this non-falsifiable non-falsifiable. So for example, let me ask you is our system this critical race theory and I'll ask you this ASD this critical race theory, promulgated system set up by white people to keep white people entrenched in systems of power. No, as I said that critical race theory is prescriptive, not descriptive. So. Okay, so, Does it, does it say that it was a system set up by white people to keep white people entrenched. Is critical race theory a system set up by white white people to keep white people entrenched in a system of power. Then why aren't they? Why are Asians outperforming them? Do you think on aggregate that Asians control this country like they are in the highest institutional power? No, I think the idea that we could explain the idea that we could explain non-inequity or non-equal outcomes by simply saying racism is nonsense. So here's the why tree. Here's the why tree that always goes down in these conversations. Why do you think that people of color, particularly, well, at least black people and Hispanic people, why do you think that they are not doing as well by almost all metrics as white people? There's tons. It's great to have that discussion. Unfortunately, in the form of critical race theory, the mere fact that I will give alternative explanations would mean that I am in fact being racist. Okay. How about this? Here's what critical race theory based on my understanding of it and my own, like again, based on my understanding, critical race theory would say that based on historical circumstances of people who are object away, undeniably racist, that either that perpetuates racism today because, you know, time is linear. People don't just magically stop being racist once a law is passed and material circumstances that do not require active participation or active malicious racism to perpetuate these material circumstances. And this would explain why there are certain inequities. It explains why Asian people tend to not fall into the same like bad outcomes as other people of color because the immigration and the history of Asian people in this country are different. So let's talk about the history of Asian people, right? For example, that's a great point. Yeah, most of the people in the, I think the immigration act in the 1950s or 60s, I can't quite remember the exact date, but yeah, most people coming here from Asia are a little bit richer. And so they're going to have. So for example, we can see the Japanese Americans far outperform white Americans. Let's look at the history of Japanese Americans in this country. Alien land laws prevented Japanese American peasant farmers from owning land and property for decades. 120,000 Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps during World War II. Assets, homes, businesses and farms all seized and stolen under the Civil Rights Act. Of course. And there was immigration after that as well. Okay. Yeah. Japanese people have done more over the years. Moreover, the internment resulted in a $3.1 billion lot property loss and $6.4 billion in income loss in 2014 dollars without accounting for potential investors. Before you keep going on this gish cow, before you keep going on the gish cow, do you think that the internment... He's crushing him. Hold on. Yeah. He's crushing me a lot, definitely. Do you think that the internment camps of Japanese people, which we all agree are bad and actually still do perpetuate a lot of like Asian stereotypes here? Because again, Asian racism is like front and center right now. Do you think that this is comparable to the centuries of oppression that other people have experienced? Well, it wouldn't matter. Let me articulate why. It's hard to compare, but I will admit, I think that clearly we would say black Americans suffered, I think, a longer history of abuse in this country. But that's not the point. Because the point is we're not looking at Asian Americans versus black Americans. The central supposition of critical race theory is that white Americans will remain at the top because all of these other races that they did horrible stuff to. If that's true, certainly they did horrible stuff to Japanese Americans, yet Japanese Americans, including multi-generational ones, so not just recent immigrants, tend to outperform white people in almost every metric. So why is that the case? It seems that this would be evidence against. And I go back to my original supposition, AST to answer your question. This is why it's a religion. Because it doesn't matter if we present evidence that disputes the central claims. People say, no, I don't believe it. It's still racism. That group just doesn't count then.  That's not what I said at all. My argument is the fact that some people have that have experienced prosecution in the country are doing okay. How is that in any way a refutation that other groups that have been prosecuted in the country are not doing well? Because your claim because the claim of critical race theory is the explanation from unequal outcomes when we see different races is that white people have abused them with policies in the past and have set up a structure to make sure white people remain at the top. If that hypothesis was true, we would expect to see all races that are non-white, particularly those like Japanese Americans that suffered concrete. We would predict if your hypothesis was correct, that those people would be doing worse than white people, but they're not. What is your explanation for why Asian Americans, despite the abuse and abuse and these laws and this white privilege that was used against them, why are they out performing white people? What's your explanation? One, Asian Americans are not a monolith. They come from a lot of different... Well, Japanese Americans are. Yeah, Japanese Americans. Okay. But again, a lot of that has to do with immigration. Again, these two things are not analogous. It doesn't have to be that no one who has ever been oppressed in this society can go forth and therefore, that disproves oppression. What I'm thinking is, let's talk about the history of welfare in this country. White people benefited a lot from welfare. They benefited from the Homestead Act. They benefited from lots of social programs that helped lift people out of poverty. They were given land. They were given houses. They were given lots of infrastructure to succeed. But the second that black people were perceived to start getting close to more racial equity, suddenly white Americans started opposing those social welfare policies.  Now they're going to those ungrateful black people. But I mean, is there, I mean, but I don't think you're putting that position like we're all against social services. I'm not against social services. I mean, I'm not against welfare. I know, but I'm just saying a critical race theory is not that.  Like I said, it takes away the individualism of the person. I mean, it's an actual Orwellian nightmare is what it's creating. Do you believe that, you know, I wish I was so weak to think that this was an Orwellian nightmare. I cannot imagine what are you talking about? What are you talking about? I'm just saying you can't see the plan that's in play right now. All the division that they're causing, you don't think that they're purposely trying to cause division. Was there division during the civil rights movement in the 60s? Do you think there was racial division in this country? Yeah, of course. Who do you think it was racist time of your life? Because it's artificially created by the media. I need you to answer this question. I'll answer any question. Can you answer a question? Is Rachel Dolezal black or white? I don't think she is, but it's an interesting conversation to have. She don't think she has not changed. You don't think she's what? I don't think she's black, but I think it's an okay. So then, so then already your argument's done because then the social contracts don't decide your race. So if social contracts did, then she would be black.  So what do you mean to be honest about it? Okay. What do you say that? Why is Obama black? What do you say to that?  His mom is white. Do you think it's incorrect to call him black? Do you think that everyone who called him the first black president? No, but it's not incorrect to call him white either, in my opinion. Okay. So most people would say that it's incorrect to call him white. Well, let me just ask you. I wouldn't say that's incorrect because his mom's white. Right. Just real quick. Like we don't have to take a look.  Okay. A lot of it has to do with like, what did they identify as? What do they feel most comfortable?  That's not true, man.  That's just not a black person.  The fact you don't, you know, cow, a tiger doesn't choose its stripes, bro. And the fact you can't admit that is very sad. Okay. It's really weird that you're starting to like compare like racial groups of humans to different animal species. That's I'm just trying to explain it so you can understand. So you get a better understanding because you're in the upside down world that you can't understand simple logic that having two white parents make you white. No, you get to choose your color. Like I'm sure you believe you get to choose your sex too.  I just say actually all the science points to the fact that way.  That's an absurd. That's it. Conversation for another day. Conversation science. So if I can, sort of like merging these two points. So when we say if race is just socially constructed and it's not real, so when we in critical race theory, for example, hold on, I gotta stop you. When we say that socially constructed versus not real, these two things, those are not biological. I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. Like language is socially constructed. Okay. Okay. So it's not biological reality. It's socially constructed. Right. So when we say people of color have been oppressed and we talk about the need to have, we need to listen more to people of color, what is a person of color? That's just someone, the shade of their colors are relevant. Right. When you're saying it's how they identify, if they identify as oppressed, that would be the characteristic that would put them as a person of color. Correct. Okay. Do you think that's okay? Let's say I identify as an American. America.  That's why we can't accept them. Hold on. Jango's everything you're saying is so hypocritical. That's why it's absurd. Awesome. So cool. Do you think America is biologically real? It exists in America? America is biologically real? Yeah. It exists in nature.  It's a country, but I don't want it. Does it exist in nature?  Oh, no. It does happen, doesn't it? Dude, you can't admit simple things. You're trying to act like it's America a biological being. Dude, you can't even answer a simple question.  I'll help you out, buddy. America is not real in any sort of biological or natural sense. It is a social construct. That does that mean that identifying as an American, it doesn't have some sort of basis in quote-unquote reality? No. We are socially constructed animals. We are biologically social. Our social interactions matter a lot. If I'm born in America, does that mean I'm an American? I think so. So I'm biologically American when I travel places. So I would be biologically American. So I'm just saying America is a biological thing. That's what I'm saying. America is a biological thing. If I'm American, then America is a biological thing. No, it's not because I'm American. I'm biological.  Dude, you're the one that can't even admit a person with two white parents is why. Dude, you're the one that has no idea you're not based in reality, using a bunch of mumbo jumbo fake science.  It's just you can't even admit facts. You can't even admit objective facts. You're saying two plus two equals five. It's not even worth discussing with you, because it's so absurd. And then AST can't even talk. I know, but this guy's a mute down here. He's a little whim. He needs to say something. He's just saying they're not saying anything. I'd like to hear him say something.  Go ahead. Jengles AST. Go. Yeah. Yeah. Jengles. I think you were saying something. Still afraid. Okay. Wait, Alex. You don't say anything. Why did you talk? Yeah, they said five words. Let him get the whole point out, Alex. I'll just reiterate what I said because man, you rambled on. No, America is not biologically or naturally real, but that doesn't mean our identification as America doesn't mean something to us. Okay. Right. There's this dichotomy between if it's socially constructed, it's not real. It's a false dichotomy and I wish people would stop doing it. Okay. Well, that's fine. I use the word real. I should have said biologically real. The problem is though, when you say that we can't look at the identifying biological markers and instead it's just about how you identify, then it becomes a matter of feelings. That's all this is. And when we're talking about a worldview that says one group of people will always be racist and we identify those people based on how they identify, it's quick to see how this system would be quickly abused. And then once you know, here's a really interesting hypothetical. It's not even hypothetical. It actually happens. So there are a Sikh people out there. All right. So a lot of Sikh people in the United States have been attacked based on anti-Muslim bias.  So we would say that the violence perpetuated against them had an anti-Muslim bias, despite the fact that they are not Muslim. Perception is reality for a lot of people. So it doesn't matter if like it doesn't matter what your genes are, it matters what you're perceived as. All right, because nonetheless, you would say, but correct me if I'm wrong, you would say even the identification of Muslims incorrect because that itself is a social construct. No, they, they, how else would you determine someone's religion based other than like self-identification? No, when we say, oh, so you're just talking really, so we're not, we're talking Muslim as an, as a religion, not as an ethnicity. So we're not saying Arabic to a lot. Yeah. A lot of people conflate the two. Okay, well the problem is that you can't identify, look, this is, this is a distinction without marriage. So what I want to do is, because oftentimes this is what occurred. So we could have this conversation as we go forward about the reality of are these abuses all because of systemic racism, but we can't even define, we're just saying that anyone who identifies as oppressed could theoretically identify as a person of color. I don't identify as having embraced or gainered any privilege based on white society. So would I be a person of color? No, no. Why? I don't identify as, I don't identify as having any advantages from whiteness. Do you identify as an American? I do identify as American. Okay, cool. Okay, anyways, so what I want to do is read something to you. Now I know that you will say, this isn't necessarily what I'm defending, but my argument is, this is how we see critical race theory. I'm gonna read it real quick. I'll read it real quick. I have a bunch that I could read, but I'll try to make it as short as possible. And I just want to ask you, if you agree with how this is happening, right? Educators in the Teagard Tulerton School District have gone all in on the social trinity of diversity, equity, inclusion. Last June at the height of the nationwide unrest, superintendent had a proclamation condemning racism, claiming to be an anti-racist school district. I'm pre-abled to the document, recited the names of George Floyd, et cetera, and confessed the district students of color and black students and particularly regularly experienced racism in their schools. To rectify this, they pledged to become actively anti-racist. The district announced a new department of equity and inclusion and installed such as activist, justice, Zina Anna's director. Uncreated a blueprint which I've obtained through whistleblower overhauling the pedagogy of the school system. You can't read out, you can't read out entire news stories in a debate, this is bad form. Okay, I'm just getting to the point then. They follow, they follow prominent Marxist Paulo Freire, following them, they write that the school district moved from reading the world to a phrase of denunciation against the revolution's enemies. At the final stage, trainers plumb their subject psyches to ensure that whiteness has been banished. They described the amalgamation of whiteness, colorblindness, individualism and meritocracy as all being racist. Cool, let's talk about colorblindness. Hold on, let's talk about colorblindness. Yeah, colorblindness and law can absolutely be used to advance racist measures that can individualism. Okay, hold on, let's do one at a time. All right, this is why you want to like spat out 50,000 things and read an entire new article. Let's talk about legal equality under the law. So historically, so after the civil rights movement, which again, as we all know that ended racism, 19, you know, civil rights act 1964 ended racism completely because now it's illegal to be racist. Well, in the aftermath of that, so a lot of city pools and other public ordinances were supposed to be integrated, you can't publicly like say that no, no why people are allowed in this pool. So they started to integrate. So what a lot of people did because apparently, after that act happened, a lot of white people were still racist. Funny that time is linear opinions don't change on the dime of a legal decision. A lot of white people were so against the idea of integration of so against the idea of sharing space with black people that they voted to shut down their city pools. They voted to shut down their city parks.  I want you to answer that yes or no. Was that racist? If you don't integrate, if you're making policies to avoid being with people of color, yes, that's race. I because I would say real quick. The reason I would say that is because there's a biological reality to race that they recognize. No, there doesn't have to be any at all. All right. If you didn't have it, they know who was black. Okay, one second. If you okay, I'm going to come back to that.  Hey, do you identify as white and black?  We're red cards, yellow cards. We've we've replicated a lot of this in-group outgroup stuff as something are objectively not biologically real. All right. So, if you perceive someone was black, they're black to you. But the answer to what I was trying to get at is that was not a racist policy, right? Under equality under the law, it was deemed not a racist policy because they didn't shut down the black. They didn't shut down the pools. They didn't shut down the parks for black people. They didn't disallow black people.  And that's equality under the law. We've seen that happen in modern day times. So, again, you're and this is what always happens in this. Like you haven't used the word redlining yet. I'm sure you'll get to that. So, what we do is we justify the abort practices that we see being taught a critical race theory. And it's, ah, there was racism in the past. What does that have to do with the idea that we try to treat people? I believe there was a man once that said we should judge people based on the content of their care. Can you all read one more thing that MLK said? Just one more. Just keep reading. Let me ask you, just real quick. It goes against what MLK said. I mean, I'm just saying. Listen, listen, you literally said that let me please let me finish. You literally said that colorblindness is racism. And I gave you one more no, wait, hold on. Stop, stop, stop, stop lying. No, I did not say that colorblindness is in itself racist. I'm saying that just because you are colorblind, you can't advance racist policies in that. And I gave you an example that's just trying to ignore it. I gave you an example where you agreed that it was racist, but the course decided that since it did not under colorblind racism, the policy wasn't racist because it didn't target any races, even though it was obviously done with racist intentions, you completely ignored that because there's a point there. We could see it happening today with things like voter registration. So the North Carolina voter ID laws that happened a few years ago, those were not racist under like the colorblind definition of the word because no one could use those IDs. But the fact that they went in and like with surgical precision picked IDs that Black people were more likely to use, it was deemed racist via intent, even though it wasn't racist under the colorblind definition of the law. We see this happening. So here's the problem. So here's the problem, right? One, you fundamentally misrepresent or you're deflecting from what the question was. The blueprint that's been using this tool says that the following things are racist, whiteness, colorblindness. Yeah, and we're going one at a time. I gave you an example. Right. No, no, you didn't because you're not. I'm asking, do you think her statement, excuse me, real quick, yes or no, do you think her statement that colorblindness is racist is true? I think it can perpetuate racism. Yes. And I think there's a lot of that's not the same. Saying it can is not the same as saying it is. Okay, cool. And here's the problem with what you're doing, right? So we see this, you'll cite an example and you'll say, here's something that was done. It wasn't expressively called racist, but when we look the intent behind it was racist. Therefore, that means that other things we see today, today must be the same way. And again, this is the problem that you often see with people that advocate this sort of critical race theory. They see something that they think has a disparate outcome and the definition is always it must be racism. So you'll say in the past we could see that a voter ID law was applied in a way that would be racist. Let's say that that's true. Does that mean that the current Georgia laws races? It could be. Yeah. How are they doing it? But it doesn't mean it is and that's the problem. Hold on. Again, real quick. And this is what we see as we see this being taught. What we see is they're saying it definitely is.  You have to say explicitly that I am doing this because I do not like this racial group, right? It seems to be the bar, but that's not how racism manifests itself in today's society, right? We do. It was very, very easy for people to change their language just a little bit to not be explicitly racist enough to get away with the law. There's current research today to say that racial hiring disparities are still present. So there's like a meta analysis like 28,000 different resumes sent and black names like statistically got 25 percent viewer callbacks. Again, this is all these things. And how can you prove racism with that without an experimental study? Okay, but here's the thing is is racism is it it most of the time does not overtly present itself. Racism is is is something that you've got to kind of pick at. You've got to kind of like figure out who's racist by implicit means, right? Okay, but here's the problem, right? So and you're accusing me of what's happening here is the exact opposite of a reality. What you're kind of is the exact opposite of what's going on in reality. Because you're saying I've set the bar for what is racist so high that nothing could meet it. But the reality is you've set the bar for what is racist so low that you don't have to prove it. You operate under the I can prove everything. Just like critical race theory does that says everything I said. No, no, no. You're not getting away with that. You're not getting away with that. Ask me to prove something I've said. I'll do it. Okay, not that some like we do. I think that the Georgia laws racist. I think that it's probably racially motivated and how you think it is. You mean to prove that because there is no problem that is being solved. All right. There is no evidence and there we have it. So you just think cool. When they're explaining something it's like their explanation isn't good or something. There is no problem to be solved here. There is no widespread voter fraud in Georgia. What they're doing is they're finding ideas that black people and other people of color are more likely to use and deciding arbitrarily like nah, even though there is literally no problem that we're solving here because voter fraud is not a widespread problem. We're going to arbitrarily lower the amount of people that are probably going to vote. It's not saying that oh well if you don't have this. Racist vote at all. It's just pointed out. How is that making sense? Racist. Even if I make sure an idea of vote isn't racist. Hold on. If there's no widespread voter fraud, obviously before this bill, why did the bill need to be passed? Well, first of all you think that it has to be like there is no proof. The idea, even if there wasn't voter fraud in the past, which we could argue whether or not there was voter fraud, it's a different topic, doesn't mean that there can't be voter fraud in the future. 68% of African-Americans hold favor of voter ID. Most blacks when polled say that they find it to be a bigotry of low expectations that white liberals say that they can't figure out how to give an ID. There were things that were in the Georgia voting law that were first considered racist. Do you think that that's it? Like if you like oh you can figure out how to get an ID. They said it's all about setting up just the Georgia voter law. It's already seen more in this country. It's not too hard to vote in this country. Give me a break. It's too hard to vote.  Alex, I'm going to let you speak because you haven't said anything in a while and I want AST to respond to it. Okay, so Alex, go ahead and take over. No, but I mean it's just absurd to say that it's so hard to vote and literally every single high school, they'll do the voter registration for you in high school before you turn 18. I mean and the idea that you can go online. Dude, first of all showing an ID to vote is not racist. You have to show an ID to get on a plane. Is that racist? It's not. That's just how rules and regulations work. But you are a critical race theory so you want to make everything about race. But that's the problem is everything's not about race. You take away the individualism where you lump the baby with a bathwater. And AST, I mean you haven't said anything. I'd really like to know what do you think? I mean you literally haven't said one thing. Like what is your opinion on critical race theory AST? So my opinion on critical race theory is it addresses some very, very, what's the word I'm looking at? It addresses some things that need to be addressed. It addresses systemic racism. It addresses white privilege. It addresses white fragility. And while we're on the subject, I want to go back to Georgia. I'm from Georgia. Don't live there now. But the county that was supposedly having the most voter fraud is Fulton County. And Fulton County is majority black. And I can't help but to think that the legislators in Georgia with these new voter registration laws had some kind of implicit racial bias when it came to Fulton County because the majority of black people vote Democrat. And Georgia is a red state for the majority of the time. And so what you can see from both performances here, they just say, well, we just feel that it's racist, therefore it's racist. So for example, one of the things they said was specifically racist about this bill was that it lowered voting hours on Sunday and black people go to church on Sunday more on average than white people and then like to vote after that. The only problem was this bill actually increased voting hours on Sunday. So the initial claim of why it was racist was then debunked and it was the exact opposite of the truth. And so they came up with more things. Let's say theoretically that Jengels is right that there was no voter fraud. It doesn't prove there couldn't be voter fraud in the future. We see that the majority of black people want voter ID but how even if all that's and none of that's true and it's just there was no problem. How does that prove racism? He just automatically, well, if there wasn't a problem, therefore an attempted solution of a problem that doesn't exist, must be racism. And that's exactly what my point is you can see this from every issue. Let's go to the big issue. Let's talk about do you think this is long? Oh, no, no, you're not doing this again.  There's all sorts of... Again, what you do is you cite a data set and then say the fact that this data set proves that there's some sort of inequity or that the outcomes are equal, that proves racism. And this is what everyone does. If someone in an experimental setting, this okay, this was an experimental setting. They said they were able to point, put the exact same resumes, exact same resumes, gave one name that is heavily associated with white people, one name that is mostly associated with white people, and we found a 28% disparity. This was the independent variable they were looking at, but this is what always happens with people like you who say it can't be racism because racism can't be a thing. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you have to, if you're making an affirmative claim that something's racist, you have to prove that it is. So for people I'm very familiar with the study. So let's say that we took a name that was historically associated with white people like this study did and said something like Rob, and then a name that was historically associated with black people like Shaniqua, right? Well, the problem is what if you took a name that was historically associated with white people like Bubba Ray? Cool, you're using the class argument you're using the class argument that is in one, one, you're referring to one study. I'm referring to an meta analysis. So one study, the one that is like Leticia or the one that's like heavily associated say us heavily associated being representative of this, did take into account class. They did. You didn't read this. They did. It's in the study that you're talking about. So for example, here's five things you could do. One, stop using names. We've written this up before, probably the best solution stop using names manipulate race and gender recent exam gender discrimination using only pronouns and found that stem favored females over males, two to one. Second, choose many names. Just moving to GoPost. I'm not moving to GoPost. You ask the problem is you say when I talk about the things that we need to do to make this study like this better because you just say well, I want to hold on that right there. I want to hold on there.  Rob is Rob is is is is taking up all the time. Hey, look, so do you do you understand how they actually accounted for class in in that study that you're citing? Yes. Yes. So you do you. How did they know? No, no, no. Yeah, tell us how they how they accounted for class in the study of names. Yes. In the study of you gave names. You want to know how they gave full resumes. How did they account for class? Well, that's different than the question that was asked. The question that was asked to me originally was how do you respond to the fact that people that had black sounding names didn't get as many callbacks of people that had white sounding names. Yes. And then you use the class argument as far as like someone named Bubba Joe is going to be associated with a lower class lower class. Why did you assume that? Why did I assume that? That sounds awfully bigoted of you. I want to jump off a roof here. One, I wanted to hone in on something you said, how can we make this study better? Your version of better seems to be how can we make this study so we can account for just anything grasp for straws so that it doesn't have the so that it gets the outcome that I want. They did. You assumed that they didn't account for class. They did and you just glossed over that and this was one study. I cited a meta analysis that was over like 25,000 something. It doesn't matter what you cite, dude. You say race isn't real.  That's the you still think that social construction means something isn't real. Tells me all I need to know about your autistic. No, it just shows that you can't even be honest. So you can't even admit that Rachel Dolezell is white. You can't just admit. I'm just saying you can't admit that, dude. That shows you how dishonest. Okay, why even go on? And keep it. It's Rachel Dolezell wider black straw, man. Hey, all you can you can say you said what? Keep up with the straw, man. That's the only thing you've said this whole thing. I'd really like to hear your opinion. You probably don't have one. I'm just saying, guys, what y'all are what you're saying is absurd. I mean, I'm just it's really kind of sad. You guys were crazy. But when you guys are based in total infactual garbage is what you guys are based in. It's really sad. You know, watch this back and see how you've contributed to this debate. So since what have you contributed? You stunk, man. You can't even it. Rob's crushed you this whole debate, dude. You've literally sat there and wet your bed the whole time. Come on. Let's let's let's chill out with the personal attacks. Come on. Let's get back on topic. So since Rob can't explain how they how they accounted for class in the study that he's citing. In the study that he's citing, they took the two names on the resume, put them in the same school, gave them the same amount of education, gave them the same city or town or neighborhood that they lived in. And the historically white names were still called back 25 percent more than the historically back names. What were the historical white names that they used and what were the historical black names that they used? So they would have used they would have used names like Chris or like guys. Hold on a second praise. I'm getting a message in the in the live chat that there's something wrong with the template. Can you check on that? I think they can still hear you guys. So go ahead. Yeah, no, they can't see any of us. Anyways, so they would have they would have used names like like Chris or Alex or they would have used names like like John.  What are the black names? They would have used names like Jake. Tarian. Jake. Isn't that exactly what I said? Isn't that exactly what I said? Yes, that is good. Why didn't you use white names? So in your in your reality in your reality. All right, thank you. The only thing that was on these resumes was the names. That's not true. We have about 10 minutes guys left before we go to Q&A. That's exactly what you said. Listen to me. Listen to me. Let's know that is exactly what the best case scenario for you here is that let me if I could explain like no, I don't understand what I'm saying. So if I could explain what the fundamental argument is everything was equal except the names and because one name sounded white and the other sounded black, then the white person that called back more. My argument is it does. Okay. So I understand that everything else was the same. What I'm saying is did the study use names that we consider with white people that would be considered phrase names that maybe parents that were of a lower class would use like Bubba Ray. If we consider black names to be names like Jeanique, Shaniqua and things like that. This is why didn't they use historic black names? This is the class argument, dude. It's a class argument. What is the matter? What we're talking about is the case scenario. We're just getting off the rails here. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no. Your best case scenario for this is that people associated historically black names with a lower class. Do you consider Bubba Ray? Do you consider Bubba with the lower class? They accounted for class. People did not have an association with class for those white names. No, you're just saying that. But you didn't pick, like again, this is the problem. And again, let me let's just like, we're not going to get to suffice it to say if people want to listen to my stream afterwards, like you go to my stream and I'll give all the examples of all the terrible things forcing white people to admit they're racist until they're in tears, firing people because they refuse to engage in the idea that they admitted they're racist, etc. We see this happen over and over. But since we're not going to get to that, let me ask you this. And just real quick, do you think our law enforcement system is racist against people of color? Yes. There's a disproportion. What is your evidence for that? There is. There was a study of that. Instead of leaving it open, would you say evidence of that is incarceration rates, likelihood to be pulled over, etc. What are those the likelihood to be pulled over? There's a study with millions, millions of traffic stops and they found that there's a disproportionate amount of people of color pulled over during the daytime that disappears during the nighttime. And there's no evidence that there's any sort of like driving disparities.  The only variable that could be accounted for that would explain why there's a disparity between white and black traffic stops. The only variable was race or more appropriately the officer's ability to identify the race of the person behind the wheel. Okay. That's not true. And I've gone over those covers, studies, but I will say this. Okay, no, they don't. Those are the best. Those are the best types. For example, in all of the areas used, they were also pulled over in traffic areas where there were high amounts of fluorescent lights that would have made it easy to see the person of color. There were also other factors such as the likelihood of people going to work. But nonetheless, let's accept that it's true for a second. What would you say if I told you, and I'm quoting now and I'll read slow so I don't get accused of gish glopping. If you're a criminal defendant, it helps a lot to be a woman. At least that's what the research and federal criminal cases suggests. And Professor Starr's recent paper, Gender Disparities and Federal Criminal Cases. It looks at the federal cases and reveals significant findings after controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics. Quote, men receive 63% large, longer sentences on average than women do. And women are twice as likely to avoid incarceration that's convicted. The gender gap is an excuse to be finished. That sentence. Oh, we know, we get it. Let me finish that sentence. The gender gap is about six times as large as the racial despair. I'm going to love my answer to this. There's this thing called intersectionality. Right. Right. Different things. Right. And yes, literally every single feminist theorist, which falls under the umbrella of critical theory, will say that men are disproportionately treated worse in the criminal justice system. I don't know what you thought you were scoring there, but no. Okay. Okay. Now, if I may, if I may, if you'll let me explain what I thought it was proving. The overwhelming majority of critical race theory defendants would also claim to be intersections, would also say that we have a criminal gender theory. Right. And that criminal, that critical gender theory would be that this system is set up by men to keep men in positions of power. They call it the patriarchy, correct? This simplistic understanding of what power means. Do you think that? No, no, no. Is that not correct? Is that not what they say? That the system, just like the system set up by whiteness to keep whiteness at the top, the system is set up by men to keep men at the top, correct? Do you think that viewing a certain group as inherent? Hold on, because do you think that viewing a group as inherently weaker than another group and therefore attacking that group is like somehow worse? Do you think that this is like, oh, this must mean that we hate men? No, I think that the I think that the people that are pretty There are five minutes left. Rob, go ahead and respond to that real quick. We're going to let AST get a chance to say something before this all gets wrapped up here. Sure. The proof is, none of the people that are out there saying that it's evidence, the law enforcement and it's evidence that we need a radical change and that we need critical race theory to say everything is racist. They're not out there saying everything's sexist and against men because when we look at the law enforcement numbers they're six times worse between men and women than they are between blacks and whites. And most of the people that engage in critical race theory are intersectionals that also decry how patriarchal our system is as well. The problem is this, you're looking at data sets and saying that proves racism and again, the way critical race theory plays out, we've seen it all through here. When asked to provide how you have proof that specific things are racist, you just say, I just, I feel it's trying to solve a problem it doesn't exist. Really, when asked to prove it, when I say meta-analysis after meta-analysis, that's just saying I think that it exists. This is the level of honesty that we were added in this debate. I said in the meta-analysis, we asked specifically to provide example of why the Georgia voting law was racist and your literal answer was because I don't think the problem of exists that it's trying to solve.  Even though 68% of blacks say we actually favor voter ID. Even though the law was designed to make sure that Sunday voting hours were increased to work. I'm glad that you value their lived experiences as black people and suddenly that matters again. AST, AST Alex, do you want to have something to say about that?   We haven't talked about being taught in school, but it'll never be satisfied. So that's why I say it leads us into that Orwellian nightmare. I mean, it's just going to get worse and worse and more racist and more marginalized and more divisive. And if you can't see that this is a Trojan horse for a very bleak future of division, then I mean, I just can't help you because you can't even admit that Rich Dolezal is a fake racer. And that you can't choose. Whoa, whoa, whoa. What? Wait, wait, wait, what? A fake what? A race? What? Race creator? Bater. Race Bater is what she is. A race Bater. And first, I said Bater with a B. I guess your headphones. Maybe it's better headphones. But I'm just telling you, it'll never, it'll never be satisfied. And that is in their own definition of what it is. So I'm not going to put some sort of snake that's just going to eat its tail that's that's literally going to ruin society. And I'll just just to say that real quick. And that's a great point. Alex, like again, when we look at the actual most successful authors of critical race theory. So in the in the book, white fragility, this is what it talks about. Here's one of the things that says the question is not, did racism take place? But whether how did race as a manifest in that situation? Literally they're admitting everything has racism. Everything has racism. And I'm sorry. Preconceived hate. Preconceived hate based on stereotypes are cool. So you don't know? No. So you're telling me I don't know racism. Give me a break, but I don't know racism. See, that just shows you how intellectually dishonest you are. And it's like, it's like I'm debating a toddler when it would debate. ST, you haven't had a chance to speak in a long, long time. You've only got two minutes left. Just start us off. Go ahead. OK, so there were a couple of things that I wanted to get to in this debate, but between the the gish gallop and and all of that, we just didn't get there. He didn't say anything because you're afraid. That's just wait. Just wait, Alex.  Like for real, you haven't said much either. I said a lot more than you, but way more than you. He said nothing. He said nothing. You didn't even have an intro, but you didn't say anything down. Alex, calm down. Come on. Calm down. Two minutes. Just let him speak for a minute. Anyways, so disproportionately, the black Latino, all of those cultures are not represented in the U.S. House in the Senate. They're not very well represented. Also, I want to go back to the whole colorblindness laws in in New York, stop and frisk laws were proven to be racist in the way they were targeting nine out of 10 stop and frisk. They did a critical race theory. I'm going to let them have the final word, Chris Ferris-Castle and Rob Noor, because you guys started it off. So go ahead and finish the thought. Let them let them finish off and then we're going to go to Q&A. This does have to do with critical race theory. It has to do with systemic racism. And so this is why critical race theory should not be taught in schools because stop and frisk happened in New York. Give me a break, dude. Come on. Right. And that's the point. If we get to finish it off, that's the point, right? I had told my audience beforehand that the two arguments that would be made the other side of the ledger was that's not real critical race theory as we identified all of the abuses. We barely got to talk about them because the way that the debate went, but it literally says everything is racist. All white people are racist. They need to apologize. They need to go through struggled sessions. If they say, if you're trying to engage in black culture, that's cultural appropriation. But if you're refusing to engage in black culture, that separationism, and that's racism in itself. Like, and what they're doing is the other thing I said they would do is they will just point to historical racism, which I think both me and Alex agree historical racism exists. And racism still exists today. None of that justified the teaching of critical race theory, which I gave you definitions which were untouched about what they define as whiteness. Linear thinking, mathematics, STEM fields, they say these things are whiteness and to be rejected. They're advocating the system. We see AP courses being removed from schools around the country. Because they're saying that black people are in those enough. Therefore, we can't have advanced education classes. So they have not made one argument. They just literally do what I knew they'd do. That's not real critical race theory and racism exists. Okay. How does that justify teaching this racist screen? That's what it is. And people being thrown there. This is my last thing.   That's absurd. That's insane. That is not a should be taught in school. No way. Okay. And with that and with that, we're going to go ahead and move to the Q&A. Ladies and gentlemen, if you enjoyed this, please smash that like button. And once again, all of our speakers are in the description. If you enjoyed them, go ahead and go and check them out and you can hear more from them. Let's go ahead and move to these questions. First question comes from Bubble Gum Gun. I'll just quickly read through this. Make sure there's nothing crazy. Race is real, but superiority based on race is wrong. Even the N-A-T-S-O-C knew subhuman existed under their race. Look at their poster of the subhuman. Yeah. So that's demonstrably wrong. Like I was trying to say. National socialists? Natsock? Yeah. I'm not sure. Can y'all hear me? Yeah. Yeah. I hear you. Okay. Yeah. No. No. It's the House and the Senate is disproportionately made up by old white people. And they're making laws for white people. That doesn't explain why Asians are out performing white people then. The problem is they just assert anything that has an unequal outcome is solely because of racism. They don't provide proof. They operate under the assumption of everything is racist. And then you have to prove that it's not. And as you attempt to prove it's not, they say you're racist from trying to deflect from the fact. That's what critical race theory is. Apparently the opposition to critical race theory is to say any sort of meta analysis, things sort of studying, things sort of like any sort of data that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that an independent variable of race is a factor in this is always going to be obfuscated because the true opposition to CRT is not really rooted in anything that is based in reality. It's rooted in this notion that we already have racial equality because I'm happy but this it's this zero sum game that white people perceive race in America as that if black people gain status in society, that must mean it's coming at the expense of white people. By the way, again, black people don't see it that way. All right. The salience and white identity predicts support for both Donald Trump. It predicts support for conservative policies and apparently racism has not been solved because again, white people have this zero some mentality when it comes to race relations in the United States. And a lot of that opposition is saying like, Hey, if we start teaching that, yeah, historical circumstances have put black people in a bad circumstance. Yeah, this notion of equality under the law hasn't gone all the way to like solving historical racism. That must mean that, I don't know, any sort of like actual policy to address this is going to hurt me because it's not helping me. That's not what's going on. You can't just say anyone who disagrees with the idea that everything is racist and everything will always be racist. It must be promulgated races. It's nonsense. What do you think that question was for? I have no clue. I think they were just I don't know. Oh, and I'm going to all right. People socially constructed does not mean not real. I don't know why this is still a thing that we have to explain. All right. Language is socially constructed. Money is socially constructed. Countries are socially constructed. Borders are socially constructed. All of these things are socially constructed. They are real. All right. They are real in the sense that we perceive them as real. That's all socially constructed means. All right. There is no biological separation between black and white. All right. There's no like genetic lineage that you can say like, Oh, no, here's where the black people stops. Here's where the white people stop is a point to like ancestry based on like the country of origins based on an arbitrary length of time that we decided is truly where you're from.  That's all that means. Okay. Thank you. Another question from bubblegum gun. Five dollars. Scots and French are different races. Quote white unquote isn't a race. Jews are not Germanic just for being quote white and quote blacks have multiple races as Asians et cetera. Who do you think that's for? I think white is a race. So I mean, that's my answer to that. The problem is, right? Like so this is often used. I would assume that's directed towards us. What they're going to say is all of these other races are actual races where white is just a conglomeration or a title that's bestowed. Therefore it's not races to say that there's white fragility or that all white people are races because white isn't a race. White is sort of an identifying moniker. But that's not the way that it plays out in reality. Because the same people the claims that they're making up are people look at a person of color and judge them and navigate aspects based on that. Critical race theory literally seeks to do that. It literally says that we look at people and say that they were born with original sin. If you are look a certain way and identify a certain way then you have been privileged by our system and you have racism.  You can say, but white's not really a race. Nonetheless, telling people based on the way they were born or based on their perceived skin color that they have some sort of moral inferiority is wrong. Period. That is judging people based on their skin color which is racism. That is the reason we should teach this. Let's say we have two people one can trace their lineage back to some a white family that benefited from the Homestead Act which like plots of land and housing and all that fun stuff was given to white people. And then let's say we have a second person that is black that was denied those opportunities. Denied housing, denied job opportunities and let's say that we're looking at them right now.  So wait, you're saying that the laws of the day both of these people the laws that they live through harmed them? I'm saying that's what you're saying? I'm saying historical circumstances. You're saying their ancestors. Yeah, I'm saying that their ancestors I'm saying that it's linear things that happen that have impacts on today. Like the better question is this let's say there's two white there's two farmers one white and one black both of them are number one and number two of the poorest farmers in America. Does it matter that one had historical oppression in their family and the other one just had their family lose their money in the stock market? How is it relevant to those two individuals today? What I love about this is that if we have if we just wait long enough for a problem we never have to solve it.  What is that? Real quick, real quick how far back are you going to go? For example, if we can find that a black African slave actually 300 years prior to that his ancestors enslaved another population of someone who still lives somewhere in Africa does that person get reparations from me because my ancestors were white then he has to give those reparations to someone else after all, borders are just social constructs right? So how far back are we going to go with this game? Well unfortunately we can't trace black people's lineage back very far can we for some reason?  Yes it is racist to say that? Yes, it would be racist how do you know how do you know that that person benefited whatsoever? Because we traced their lineage we traced their circumstances of it Okay, you know you traced We really must move on there are still questions coming in Let's go That's about for racism because white people just so you just so you heard We should be talking about critical race here but okay let's go Next question is from Kiss My Converse fool five dollars this is for you Alex does Alex think he's a different race from Chris Hemsworth or Tom Brady because they are larger and more athletic and virile than him? False Tom Brady is not more virile than me whoever that said I'm primetime 99 I'm the most viral man in the world I have you know a 12 inch Wang I freaking I rock out on my cockout I'm primetime 99 they wish that I actually you're right I am black I actually identify as a Kim Elijah one because I have such large genitals so that is strong I am not the same as Tom Brady I think I just got another one of this come in we copy this real quick and I love Tupac so it's socially constructed on black like Rachel D'Olazale keep talking sorry no I just I will mention also when we were talking about cases of discrimination and hatred like we can see for example that there are a lot of feeling like it's continually said all white people have this sort of bigotry in them more and this inherent and you don't see these group preferences in African Americans was said we see that when it comes to hate crimes disproportionately those are overwhelmingly commuted by people of color in an evaluation survey experiment studies there were a bunch of surveys that were done and they asked all these people defining characteristics of the other skin color a meta analysis of 17 surveys and were published in research and politics found for whites there's no detectable net discrimination for against whites by white people for black participants they exhibited a small to moderate net discrimination in favor of black targets so it's not as simple as it's being said we definitely see that there are people that use this sort of idea of critical race theory to engage in racist practice and dislike people based on their skin color being white white identity is seen as the default it's seen as the norm in society so a lot of white people aren't aware of the racial identity they're not aware cameras died again praise just so you know let's go ahead and move on from P. Barnes five dollars arrested development narrator the upside down world Alex was referring to was actually the real world that's true I mean that's from the show Arrested Development who's the guy that opi from Ron Howard yes we are in the upside down world these guys are saying race isn't real and that wrote to Rachel Dolezal's black so we are in the upside down world you keep saying I'm going to explain it to you one last time and then I'm just going to write you off as a lost cause race is not biologically real there is no hard categorical sufferers hard categorical separation of races that you can draw genetically or biologically races socially constructed socially constructed does not mean not real and if you don't a black man and a black woman do not have a white baby but that's just not how listen listen but here's the problem jangles here's the problem with your interpretation let's say that it is correctly let's say that arguably there is no perfect way to determine race if you're because here's the two competing definitions we have that we look at biological factors is one which I agree with or you say that it's totally socially constructed we can see what that leads to for you if someone says who looks like me says actually I identified as black you have to say okay so which one why don't you you said it's based on is rachel dolazell white or black I don't think that she's black but like I said I'm interested in the conversation so so then you just okay this is where Alex is this is something that I admitted like an hour and a half ago I have but it just shows you dude you're a hypocrite everything you're saying you're talking out of both sides let's move on you're just you're talking you're so fucking we've already been over this you're a hypocrite all right all right all right guys bubblegum gun two dollars class is greater than race critical class theory ban the military okay there's ban the military stupid but there is a lot of truth that the reality is the people that really run this country at the establishment level and I mean corporate america the mainstream media academia the politicians etc at the top tier level they seek to divide us by race that's why they love critical race theory that's why starbucks or nikey that you nikey that's using near slave labor in china puts black lives matter up on their website because as long as we're fighting over this stupid race stuff the real people that actually have power that keep us from power they're laughing their ass though because they're causing this division amongst us so yes these class disputes where are where we should be focused instead we literally had to like I have all kinds of evidence Oakland california for example I wonder if there are any class guys guys guys let's move on just let me finish real quick oakland gave out money to poor people as long as they were black that's where we're at now all right let's move on madoos nco five dollars also for jangles let me read this real quick okay i'm already also for jangles why did my black buddy in the army get promoted over a bunch of white dudes when the us army was set up by white men for white men if anybody succeeds if anybody overcomes their circumstances if anybody overcomes hardship that means that there is no hardship I have bad news if this is your view of what racism looks like in America I better never hear any of you say that there's any anti-white racism whatsoever white people have been the president white people are the presidents of like all these CEOs white people have made it to the most powerful positions in society and that's the level of racism that has to be set I don't know that I better hear about anti-white racism at any point because people have gotten over it there can't be any discrimination widespread if one person or even a minority of people like make it pass it and still manage like succeed in society that's survivorship bias baby similarly I didn't see I didn't know into it if it happens to a black person is immediately denoted as racist this is james questions we have said the final word okay now this is um no survivorship bias is a thing just because someone makes it out someone could succeed despite their circumstances doesn't mean those circumstances warrant an an unnecessary hardship I don't know why this is a legitimate question that people still ask all right oh late night hvac 499 how do you explain black immigrants from Jamaica and Honduras being more educated in having a higher median income than blacks born here well because since uh the countries that they're coming from are not continuous you have to have a lot of money to come over here so if you have a lot of money you're probably going to succeed a lot more right racism is not just this it's not the only factor and that's why the critical race theory looks at more than one thing critical race theory doesn't say that race is the only important thing that is uh that you could look at in society and to reduce it to that it's it's just simply incorrect if someone says that a critical race theory says that race is the only important factor in all circumstances uh don't listen to them that person is an idiot trying to sell you something the fact that there are people who can afford to come to the United States who happen to be black they have a lot of money they have access to a lot of education that's why that's a thing let's be honest I assume that question was directed towards us to be honest because that's tries to speak to your point is what they're trying to do and the reality I think that really is okay let's go we can move on okay I have an answer that's why I'm going to say let's move on uh that okay this one's a question has anyone on the panel read the book Helen Pluck Rose and James Lindsay's book cynical cynical theories I feel Jengles would do a good book review on it I have actually read it and I'm going to okay let's move on do you think schools are currently miseducating students on the subjects about race if they are not teaching CRT do you think schools are racist for not teaching CRT it depends on what your definition of CRT is again as we started banning more and more CRT as schools started banning CRT the definition of CRT seemed to encapsulate everything if you seriously if you talk about racial justice apparently that's CRT now I think any education and we talk about social studies again if we look at social studies they teach norms they teach values they teach civic duty in our society they teach they teach history and if you ignore the impact of slavery if you ignore the impact of Jim Crow if you ignore the impact of every other like racial disparity that has been perpetuated through pro-white like white supremacist policies I think you're doing a disservice to your students what really got me upset about this is that a lot of people are opposed to this because they think it'll make people hate America and so it's the focus is on making kids love America making them patriotic more than it is telling them the truth and if that happened in any other country I think a lot of those people would recognize it as propaganda when love for your country it takes precedence or teaching the truth I think that's dangerous and if you look at like how people justify the systems that they're in if you teach people that racism is not a thing in America anymore and you ignore the material reality the objective reality that black people are in the position that they are right now based on historical circumstances that perpetuate from generation to generation well if white people are here white people are here and there's no such thing as racism anymore a lot of people will post talk justify that so I think that's dangerous and I think you're doing a disservice to your students if you don't talk about that stuff I don't care if you call it CRT because no one knows what that means anyway none of the people in protest they didn't know what it means and I'll even admit a lot of people defending it don't know what it means but if we encompass CRT to start talking about like white privilege systemic racism racial justice and yeah if you take those things out and make them illegal to talk about yeah I think you're doing an enormous disservice not only to your students but to the citizens that they will eventually become we talked about racism before CRT it's unique things we've talked about that's bad with CRT that we reject okay well why are people okay again I said people are defining more and more stuff as CRT to be to fall into the how old are you if you don't mind me asking you could just give me like a decade like 30 or 40 30 okay uh did you learn critical race theory in your school if I learned about like slavery and the impact that I had kind of sort of but it was like okay that's not critical race theory and that's fundamentally why you've been so wrong in this debate and no one disagrees that we shouldn't teach about slavery that's nonsense that's nonsense of course we teach about slavery hold on I didn't go through critical race theory all right within it because then okay I'll take the L on this if you say that James Lindsay is full of shit when he says that teaching about racial justice is part of critical race theory who you you already took the L you already took the L but it doesn't matter I mean you took a huge L today so it doesn't matter what we say yeah you lost and oh hey hey since you're very smart and has have contributed a lot how about that is James Lindsay stupid and completely full of shit when he says that teaching about racial justice is part of CRT James Lindsay is the smartest person to ever teach in the world they James Lindsay so smart thank you James Lindsay for existing if it wasn't for James Lindsay society with a fabric of society would crumble so thank god when he says that racial justice is part of CRT teaching that like you agree with him oh I agree with him everything he said it is yeah yeah let's say that again part of it yes yeah all right if we ban CRT no for example teaching slavery no for example let me ask you that real quick that at all real quick I heard all I need to to know from conspiracy right right right I know you don't want to have this for it in the world teaching slavery part of CRT no is he it's a lens through which to view it right but the idea of slavery and the historical kind of slavery would be part of a teaching of CRT correct it could be yeah it depends so if we ban CRT yeah I don't know that they're if we ban different ways so if we ban CRT are we banning teaching of slavery there is a lens and I've said that multiple times if you teach slavery is that this is a bad thing that America did but we're better now racism is over then yeah you're not using CRT but if you haven't said that no one saying to teach that we're better there is no racism no one this is a strong man okay cool so we're saying that racism is the only thing that exists in America I've cited I've cited the critical race theory authors that say racism is ever prevalent and you change your definition no true Scotsman okay guys let's move on we got more questions coming in still we're probably we're probably gonna go all the way to the end there if you guys send in your questions now I'm not sure well it's difficult to listen to you guys and try to you know moderate and watch the chat and you know all the crap you know but if you guys send in any more questions now I'm not sure especially if they're not super chats I'm not 100% sure that they're gonna get read we did get another super chat in from a snark boy not shark boy snark boy five dollars to the nose a policy isn't racist because of individual racists it's racist if it disproportionately negatively impacts minorities that's not true right if that was the case then that would go with any group that we could say so for example of a policy disproportionately affected wealthy people as that classes if a policy disproportionately affects men is that sexist no not necessarily for example rape laws disproportionately affect men because rape men commit more rapes but that doesn't mean that that law is sexist that's the problem with critical racing no no there are reasons there's really not that's not an example there's not an example no that's not an example just let me answer here I don't know how that's not an example let them finish let them finish I need you to I need to finish.  Let Rob at least finish his statement. I mean, I think you got a lot of but I need to respond to just one thing you say when he's done. Okay. So it doesn't prove it. So it doesn't prove because there are outcomes that are disparate that it was racism. Racism could factor in is one of the reasons how it could be entirely racist, but it's not proof that it is racist. And if you start under the assumption, if there are unequal outcomes that proves that there was bigotry, then we lead to this crazy world where we make all of these sorts of excuses, a world of equity. Equal outcomes is a disaster. Forcing equal outcomes is a disaster. We should force equal opportunity. Show me the law that is set up to dissuade from equal opportunity and I will decry is racist right there for you. But we don't just do like jangles and others have done here where we say up if there's any disparate outcome that proves racism. Okay. Another super chat came in from my deuce and co $5 jangles just assumed my buddy only got promoted because he fell through the cracks of a white system, but it was actually because he was better jangles. How does that contradict what I said? I said someone succeeded. All right. Like, how does that contradict what I said? I didn't know data was pronounced anecdotes. No, no, no, no, no, he's making a claim. It's not a matter of data. The problem is, if of course it's not data, you would be having this position that I think that the general point that's trying to be made is we shouldn't assume people as a collective and that the reason they don't succeed is because the system because there's a bigotry of low expectations that then means we assume that anyone that was able to overcame that wasn't through their individual talent. It was because somehow the white man didn't keep them down. And that's what you truly believe in this. If you truly believe in this, then nothing that we do, no, nothing, no CRT that we teach, none of that's going to affect anybody because individuals can just choose not to be affected by it. They can just, you know, what you talked about. I mean, hey, I don't believe that. All you have to do is make it out. That's not what I believe. You're talking to kindergartenist. You're indoctrinating kindergarten. What isn't is, okay. Last question I need is the Pledge of Allegiance indoctrination. No. Okay. Move on. Move on. Move on. Move on. Move on. In a sense, you could argue. Okay. That's an answer. That's an answer. Okay. Snark boy. $5. Good jangles. Good work. Do you think it'd be better if CRT rebranded? It's easy to get mad at terms like white fragility if you don't know what it means. So the term I like to use is system justification theory. All right. It takes away the mouse. It takes away like our perceptions of racism and just focuses it on what is perceived as normal in society. People like the status quo because it gives them comfort.  So you can take away individual malice out of the equation and just people will fight to have a motivator reasoning to maintain the status quo. That's why I don't think that the white people who are scared that, oh, no, we might become a minority in our own country. I don't think that they are terrible people. I think that they are implicitly racist. And I think that they're advocating for racist outcomes because they view that as a zero sum game. But I don't think that they're inherently terrible people. I don't like that good, bad binary that discussions of racism often turn into. I just think it's a matter of people want to maintain the status quo. A lot of people will see like activists saying that if someone is fighting against the status quo, if they are like a leftist or progressive, fighting against the status quo, most people are more likely to assume that leftist or that progressive fighting against it is going to be more like intrinsically selfishly motivated versus a conservative who's just trying to fight to keep things the same. I think that's really does a disservice into the American spirit of trying to get better, trying to fix problems that we had, trying to recognize that we do have a set of norms in our society. We do try to enforce like we do try to make abhorrent deviations from those norms. And that kind of goes against the American spirit of freedom and equality and like the ability to do what you want to do. So I would reframe it as system justification theory. I think it would be a lot less combative. But the fact that I don't know, that's how I agree. Okay, really guys got to say, if you send any more super chats in or any questions, I don't think they'll get rid read anymore. I'll try to get the last last ones in here. Let me put them in here in this list. But okay. Five dollars from five times 1000. We blaming the Europeans for slavery instead of the white Americans. I don't believe people fled to America and said, damn, we forgot the slaves. So I guess this is directed towards us. No, the slavery is there was slavery that was occurring all throughout the world, right? It might have been done in different ways. So I know that one of the arguments that critical race theory proponents want to say is chattel slavery was the way slavery was done in the United States, which was uniquely different than other countries. But we see that European countries, for example, had other forms of slavery. If you don't believe it, read King Leopold's ghost. Look what they were doing in the exploitation of Africa and places like that. Again, the argument is the United States didn't create slavery. We are the country that fought the most costly war to end slavery. Okay. Okay. From late night HVAC first generation black immigrants are very poor, yet they can grow into middle class income in for in one generation. Why not for born here blacks? All right, it takes about five generations for well, wealth disparities to even out. Okay, just because according to the data, okay, okay, Rob, let's finish. Oh, okay, just because it happens. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Okay. Thibeso Mahal. I'm sorry if I'm mispronouncing your name. I'm so sorry. Thibeso $5 from at modern aid for Alex. Are you saying black folks at the NAACP couldn't tell Rachel wasn't black or could they, but they just accepted her? They couldn't at first. At first they thought she was actually black until they caught her lying. She said she was black and then they found pictures of her young with their parents and so she had white parents.   Okay. From bubble gum gun, the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a communist. Anybody want to respond to that? No, okay. We're relevant. Aftershock for $5. If racism is whenever something disproportionately affects minorities, is it racist when Democrats pushed for $60? $600 gun insurance when it affects blacks mostly? Yes. I may have missed something in that copy. Okay. Yes. Jengles, you agree? Well, it might come as a surprise to you, but yeah, in the left, yeah, a lot of lefties do agree.  Can I ask a follow-up? Do you think it's racist to have vaccine passports since it's harder for blacks to get identification? It could be in certain areas, but I think the greater good. That weighs it. Vaccine passports and gun registration rates. It's good. I'm going to try to get to these other questions that weren't paid for real quick. I read that one. Ask Jengles to prove race is not biological in less than one minute. Okay, cool. When we say race, we're talking about black, white, Asian, all that fun stuff. These are not real categories that are meaningfully separated based on genetics. No geneticist, no biologist will say, yeah, you can take these, these cluster genes and we can say that this person is black. These are social constructions that we say like, hey, someone who like, it's mostly based on looks. In fact, it's mostly based on self-identification. For example, in the medical field, we look at racial disparities in medicine and we say that the racial disparities are salient when it comes to like the logistics and the infrastructure of medicine, but they are not relevant when we talk about the actual outcome, the biology of medicine. Doctors don't use the biological definitions of race. Geneticists don't use the biological definitions of race. We use it to determine social outcomes because it is a social construct that cannot leave this conversation. Okay, okay, okay. The other question that we had was the $600 for gun insurance, right? Is that what we were talking about? Yes. Okay, so this question is already been answered. All right, so this will be the last question. Explain sickle cell. You can't look at a black person and say they have sickle cell. We know that sickle cell- You can look at a white person and know he doesn't have it. If a biology doesn't exist, that doesn't exist. Would you be insulted if I say- That's false. I went to school with a white girl that had sickle cell. Sickle cell comes from an ancestry that grew up near the equator during tropical climates because sickle cell eventually helps to guard against malaria. So we can trace your ancestry back to those tropical areas and say, yeah, you're more likely to have sickle cell, but we cannot look at your race.  They have it more than white people. Facts, and you won't admit that just because you're not based in reality. Okay, ask a doctor. This has been incredible tonight. Well, I know you're not a doctor. You cannot look at an individual black person and decide- I'm not saying you look at an individual, but I can look at a black person more likely to have it than a white person because of their genetics. Because of their different genetics. Because black people have different genetics and white people, that's why they're more likely to have sickle cell anemia. And you can't admit that. Oh, I'm sure you don't believe evolution as well. Can you see DNA when you look at somebody? Can you see DNA? Dude, what are you talking about? Can you look at somebody? No, you can't see DNA. You're talking about DNA. It's too small. Yeah, but, dude, can two white people have a black baby? Can two white people have a black baby? No, dude. We've got to wrap it up, guys. You guys really got to get based in reality. You guys are not.  If that's your bedroom, dude, that is a very sad reality you live in. And if we've got to wrap it up. It's very scary, very scary reality. We've got to wrap it up. Okay, thank you all so much for your vigorous conversation here tonight. You were all very impassioned. You spoke with much vigor and heart. And we all appreciate that. I'm sure the chat was loving it. And I certainly did enjoy it as well. Thank you, everybody, in the chat for engaging with us. And thank you all for trying to attack the arguments and not the speakers. Thank you, the moderators. Thank you, everybody, for pitching in and helping out. Keep everything civil and changing the discourse. And I want to thank everybody that came together. Thank you, praise for producing and helping us get this show on the road and keeping everything together. I had a lot of fun. Make sure everybody to go and check out our debaters in the description. Smash the like button. Subscribe if you can. And we'll see you in the next video.