People of the internet, welcome to modern day debate. Tonight we are debating is racism real? Going first tonight, I will turn it over to Mango T for his five minute opening statement. Mango T, at your first word, I will start the clock. So, at your first word, the floor is all yours. Thank you guys and thank you modern day debates. I'm here to argue why racism does not exist. Some people believe racism is real. Others believe that it still exists. Some people believe that racism will never cease to exist. I'm here to tell you racism does not exist, period. My argument is simple. Racism cannot be objectively measured. Racism cannot be experienced objectively. Personal accounts are subject to interpretation. And racism is a definite label used to propagate further division among people. Therefore, racism does not exist. Racism can be defined as prejudice. It can be defined as discrimination. It can be defined as antagonism. But I'm telling you, this has nothing to do with race. It has nothing to do with the dislike of someone's skin color. Racism does not exist. It's widely considered to be a belief that a group of people possess superior qualities over others. For example, white people in America are considered to be intellectually superior than black people for the need of Americans. But we know that that's a lie. Modern interpretations of racism are based on social perceptions of biological differences between people. And these views can take the form of social actions, practices, beliefs, or political systems in which different racial groups are ordered or arranged according to their qualities. So, for example, you have white people. The political system in America is designed for white people, as some people might say. But I disagree. That's not true. Racism does not exist. And there's various examples to support this. One of the claims that people make about racism is that it's discriminatory. White people or Native Americans are somehow being mistreated in America. They had to undergo slavery, segregation, the Jim Crow laws. But we all know all those things didn't affect black people at all. It didn't affect Native Americans at all. So what is this racism that people keep talking about? It's delusional. It's never existed. Black Wall Street, otherwise known as Greenwood District of Oklahoma, a neighborhood containing many African American businesses in the early 20th century, were very, very successful. They were living under segregation. They were living under Jim Crow.  During the early 20th century, segregation was predominantly practiced across the South and the North, which forced separation between the races. The African Americans were subjected to de facto second-class citizenship and were prohibited from interacting and engaging with the white population. Segregation and so-called racism did not prevent Jackson Ward, another example of a successful African American neighborhood in Richmond, Virginia, with a long tradition of African American businesses. So that to me shows that so-called racism does not exist. It does not prohibit one from attaining wealth. Looking at the time, I don't think I can go overboard. I have some other points to address, but I'm happy to end it there. All right. Thank you, Mango Tea. We'll go ahead and kick you to T-Jump for his opening statement. T-Jump, the floor is all yours. Racism is real. Nazis were a thing. QED done. All right. We'll go ahead and kick into the open discussion in just a second. But before we do, I just want to let you know, especially this is your first time on modern-day debate, that we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. And we want you to feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from. And if you have a question for one of tonight's debaters, fire it into the old live chat and be sure to tag me at modern-day debates. Superchats will go to the top of the list. I'll be asked that you keep it civil and address the question, the argument and not the person. Insults will not be read. Our moderators are working tirelessly to elevate the conversation. So show them, each other, and the debaters the respect they deserve by not hurling attacks and insults. Our guests are linked in the description below. So if you're listening on YouTube or via the podcast, please be sure to click on their links. If you like what you're hearing and check them out for more and hit the subscribe button as we have plenty more juicy debates coming your way. And with that, we'll go ahead and kick it to our interlocutors for our 60 minutes of open dialogue. Gentlemen, at your first word, I will start the timer. The floor is all yours. Oh my God. Let's get this over with. Okay. You made the claim racism exists. Yes. The Nazis killed entire races of people and not the other races that weren't that race. Congratulations. That's that's got nothing to do with race or racism. What do you think the word racism means? As I already mentioned, it can be defined in multiple ways. Okay, so define it. It's as I already mentioned, it's discrimination. It can be discrimination. It can be prejudice. So like killing, killing an entire group of people because they're that group of people. Is that is that a kind of discrimination? No, not at all. What do you think the word discrimination means? It just means treating someone less fairly than others. So like killing them killing them would be treating them less fairly, wouldn't it? Not at all. It's never existed. Design to to to basically create a group of hate for people. That's all racism is that's all sexism is that's all. So racism racism is treating people discriminating against a group of people when you teach people specifically in the American education system. We teach students about racism. Me go me go go back to the argument. You know what the end result is? No, no, me go me go me go. I just I just crushed your point. You need to go back and address what you just said because what you just said, no, right. So so you said racism is discrimination against a group treating and discrimination treating one group different right. Racism just not exist at all. I don't make it happen. Stop talking and listen to the words I'm saying. So I asked you question. I asked you what is racism? And you answered that question. You said it's discrimination against one group over another. Right. I said that there's multiple meanings. So that's great. That's great. So is this one of the meanings you said discrimination? Sure. Great. And is discrimination I asked you to define that term and you said it's treating one group differently. Is that is that what you said? Oh, yes. Is killing one group and not killing another group treating one group differently than another group? No. How do you define treating one group differently than another group? That's just do you want to know the answer to that? Yes. That's why I asked me go. It's just hatred. Okay. How do you at the end of the day, this, you know, the idea that someone is attacking someone else based on their race is a lie.  I'm saying discrimination doesn't exist either. I'm saying racism does not exist. So you think discrimination doesn't exist? If you have a Nazi, he hates the Jews. He's not killing them based on X, Y, Z.  That's it. End of story. That's racism. Congratulations, Mango. That is not racism.  I'm saying that person died. Why did you hate them? Because they had hate in them, not because of the Jews. Why did they hate one group and not a different group, Mango? Why did they hate one group and not another group? Yeah. Because that's what they were indoctrinated with. Congratulations. That's racism, Mango. That's not racism. That's hatred. It is. No reason. So if racism is discrimination and discrimination is hatred, and they had hatred for one group and not another group, congratulations, Mango. Modest ponens. That's racism. You just admitted that I'm right. That's not racism.  Do you believe that they just have an effect on you? What? Does racism have an effect? Yes. How? Killing people, lots of people.  That's what it says. It literally doesn't have anything to do with the topic, Mango. I see a Nazi killing a Jew. All I see is one hateful man killing an innocent person. I don't see a German killing a Jew based on their traditions or their race. That's a lie. How is that a lie, Mango? What are the other reasons? What other reasons did they kill the Jews? Because they hate them. Yes. Because of their cultural practices? No, because they have an inner conflict within them. The Nazi party had an inner conflict within them. That's stupid, Mango, because if that was the reason that would apply to everyone, not just the Jews. When you have this inner conflict within you, and you have hatred residing in you, you look at the outside world and you start pointing fingers at others for your own problem. And so that's exactly what it says. Great, Mango, double-drift the topic. So again, that's part of it. Mango, you have to actually use logic here.  So why did they kill the Jews and not the other groups that were also there? Because if it's just they had hatred in their hearts, Mango, they would have killed all the other groups. But they didn't. They targeted one group more than the rest of the groups. Why did they do that, Mango? Because I don't think you understand the underlying I asked you a question. Why did they do that? And not what I understand doesn't have anything to do with what they did. I would suggest in studies, studying racism, you study hatred and understand how. How about answer the question? When you hate something, right? When you have an inner conflict within yourself. Answer the question. And you look out to the world and you point at something, you're going to stick to that thing and you're going to continue to hate that thing. And you're not going to put your focus on other things. You're just going to put all your focus and hatred on that one thing. Right. So you hate one thing more than the other things? Like one group more than a different group? Like, oh, isn't that racism?  No, it isn't. Yes, it is. Because when you imply racism, you're basically saying that there's an oppressor and the oppressed. Yeah, the one with a gun and the one that doesn't have the gun. And when the oppressed hear the words that they being hear the words racism, they begin to become like their oppressors. That makes zero sense whatsoever, gibberish. That makes sense. Does that make sense? No, I just said it didn't make sense. And that's why the institutions created racism. They knew exactly what they were doing. They wanted to create more hate for people. And so they designed the word racism in order to sort of propagate further divide among the people. Who designed the word racism, Mango? Where did that word come from? When the oppressed hear the word racism, they immediately invented the word racism, Mango. Institutions. Which institutions? At what time frame? When in history was this word invented? Did the Nazis invent the word? It's an American institution. I'm not going to name names, but they created the term. What? Wait a minute. So it doesn't come from Latin? It's not a Latin based word. Many words are Latin based, but that doesn't mean that Latin is the one that created them. I don't think you understand the concept of etymology, Mango. Not really surprising. I do. I don't understand any concepts. I do. There are many words that have Latin origins, but the Latin meaning is nothing to do with the words that we're using. That's backwards. So the meaning of the words is the same. And the word itself is the difference. There's some similarities, but it's not the same. No, Mango. So like the origin of female is farming, which had also meant woman. So the word meant the same thing. Even it was a different word. Either way, like it doesn't exist. I don't care what the origins of the words are, that's besides the point. Because when you use racism, all you're doing is making more hate for people. The oppressed are using this word. So they killed people because they wanted to make more people. That makes... So what are you doing is creating a further divide. So they killed people because they wanted to make more hateful people. Is that that's the logic here? They didn't want to eliminate people. They wanted to make more of them. So they killed them. Makes perfect sense. No, I'm saying when you label the Nazi the persecution of the Jews as racism, then you haven't really like... All you're doing is you're just creating further divide among Jews and Germans and Nazis. The Nazis don't exist anymore, at least not in big numbers. So it doesn't create any more divide. It's a description of past events. Oh, he froze. Thank God. Maybe I'll just... He'll come back. Probably. Let me just say, if you guys have any super chats for tonight's debaters, please feel free to fire them. It's the old live chat. Super chats will go to the top of the list. But if you don't want to set a super chat, you can tag me at modern day debates. But again, as I said, super chats will go to the top of the list. And again, if you like what you're hearing from either of our tonight's debaters, they are linked in the description, especially if you're listening on YouTube, but also if you're listening via podcast. So hopefully we will have them back in a moment. And don't forget to like the stream if you like what you're hearing and subscribe for more juicy debates. And he's gone. I think Tom have vanquished him, but only for a moment before he has returned. There he is. Awesome. Sorry about that. Computer is racist against him. It doesn't like his skin color.  All right. So true. But yeah. So as I was saying, all you're doing is you're creating a further divide. It literally doesn't matter what the divide is, may go whether or not there's a divide has absolutely no difference to whether or not racism is real. Even if it does create a divide, it's still real. It's the field of consequence. No, no, no, it doesn't. It doesn't exist. Oh my God, follow the logic. You said, may go, may go, may go. Follow the logic follow. So you said that it causes this consequence of causing greater divide. And I said, that literally doesn't matter, you idiots, because whether or not it causes a divide is completely irrelevant to whether or not it's a real thing.   You haven't even given any proof yet. You're talking about a... Nazis, there you go. Racism. That's hate. That's racism. They hated a group more than other groups. That's racism. Congratulations. What is it? It's just hate. More of one group more than another group. No, it has to do with more of one group. The other groups that weren't affected by the hate, they were just the lucky ones. That's all it is. That's all it is. Literally doesn't matter. Even if that was true, it still wouldn't make it not racism. It's not racism. It's literally hatred. Of one group more than another group. I started hating white people. How would you define that? Racism. How? You hate one group based on their identity or their origin, social origin, more than other groups. How did you make that conclusion? That's all assumptions. By the dictionary?  I didn't talk about their qualities. I didn't talk about how they... You literally did. That's what white people means. White people is equality. The whiteness, quality. No. That's not true at all. The flat earth response. The flat earth response. No, that's not true. And you're still having difficulty explaining how racism exists because you mentioned that racism has an effect, right? Yes. If that's the case, why were there successful African American businesses in Oklahoma and Virginia during the time of segregation and so-called discrimination? Because not literally everyone is racist to the same degree and not literally everyone is affected by racism. Exactly. Racism is a spectrum. You know, you can't even... They're admitting it's real. Yes, it's a spectrum. Correct. It's not real. It doesn't exist. It's a spectrum. It cannot exist and be a spectrum, Mango. You got to pick one. No, I'm trying to tell you that I'm trying to define how you're looking at racism. Are you looking at racism as a spectrum, right? Sure. You can't even properly define it. Therefore, it does not exist. Racism is... If I put T-Jump on a spectrum...   So racism is discrimination against one group or a different group. Okay, I think I'll just define it for you. No, which one is the right T-Jump? What? If I placed you on a spectrum, how would I know which one is the right T-Jump? What? That literally makes no sense, Mango. Exactly. So putting racism on a spectrum makes no sense. Racism makes perfect sense. Your words make no sense. If racism makes sense, why do you need to put that on a spectrum? There are lots of things that make sense that are on a spectrum. Numbers... It would be a spectrum. Stop talking, Mango. Stop talking.  Hold on. So numbers are on a spectrum. Colors are on a spectrum. They make sense. Height is on a spectrum. His weight is on a spectrum.  Weight is on a spectrum that makes sense. The ability to see is on a spectrum that makes sense. Lots of things are on a spectrum. Most things are on a spectrum and they make perfect sense, Mango.  It's not true at all. Numbers on a spectrum, each number on a spectrum is completely different to their counterparts. Is height and weight, are those spectrums? You say that racism is clear as day. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Go back. Are height and weight spectrums? Yeah. Do they make sense? No. That's why you need to define specifically. That's why... Wait, wait, wait. I'm not finished. That's why you need to define specifically. It's ambiguous. What is a weight? Height and weight are ambiguous. He is specified exactly. The amount of mass you have and the scalar size of your height relative to the parallel, to the orthogonal to the earth, yes, those make perfect sense. Height and weight. Are you saying that people can be racist and they can be also good? All right, friends are good. Thank God. Is he frozen to you? I can hear him. Yeah, he's Mango. Not in the same words. Yep, can he hear me? I can hear you. Are you saying that you can be a racist and also be a good person? Is that a possibility? Sure. How? Because you don't act on the racism. So if you act on good intentions and good morality, even if you are racist, you can still be a good person. So someone can hate an entire group and not act on it. If you're racist, it's possible for you to be a good person. It's absolutely impossible. It's out the window. No, it's not. It's pretty easy. It is.  You can be saving lives and you can be saving babies but ultimately, if you have a racism in you, you're wicked. No, that's not how it works. Thought crime isn't a thing. You're not wicked because of the thoughts you have. You'd be wicked if you acted on it. Just having the thoughts isn't wicked. That's not true. Also, if it's impossible for you to be both racist and a good person, that means racism must be real. Because if it wasn't real, then it would be possible, wouldn't it? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Because you said that it's possible to be racist and good. Yes. And you said it's impossible. And if it's impossible, that means it has to be a real thing. No, it's because there is no racism. It's just hatred. Which is racism. Those are the same thing. No. Because, again, as you said, racism has an effect but it didn't affect the African Americans during segregation. It didn't affect the Germany. Yes, it did. It didn't affect the Germany. No, it didn't. Yes, it did. But it was as successful as the white counterparts. So you're completely lying. So you're either lying or losing. Composition to vision fallacy, you're saying because it didn't affect some small percentage, therefore it had no effect on any of them at all.  Just not that fallacy. That's reality. It's literally a composition to vision fallacy. Are you trolling or something? No, I think that's what you do consistently. How is racism real? You still haven't proved any evidence. I literally have. There are groups of people who target other groups of people based on their race and kill them, known as the Nazis. That's all assumptions. How is that an assumption? We have graves, mass graves, full of Jews. Yeah, that's based on hate. That's not based on racism. If it was based on hate, why is it only the Jews that are in those graves? Because they were the ones that they were targeting. Yes. They were targeting one group over another, which is discrimination, which is racism.  When you are hateful, you can only focus on one thing. That's racism.  Congratulations. No, I don't think I understand how hate works. If you hate one group over other groups, that's racism. No, it isn't. Yes. Yes, it is. What is it? No. The flatter response. The no flatter response. Genius. That's hatred. If you look at sexism, for example. We've already covered this. Hatred is racism if it's towards a specific group over other groups. Okay. You know what? Forget about that. Let's look at what the damaging effects of this so-called racism has done to our society. Can I apologize? Racism only creates more hateful people. In schools and universities today in America, they age it. What does this have to do with the topic? Like, literally it wouldn't even matter if that's true. I'm trying to paint a picture as why a damaging thing that doesn't exist, by the way, has on our society. This made up consequence. If it doesn't exist, then the damaging effects that we have on our society is unbelievable. That literally doesn't. So if it doesn't exist, then how can it have a damaging effect on society? There. Well, they, the institutions, well, let me finish. Institutions created this idea of racism and indoctrinated the students about it and other students living their lives thinking that racism exists. But in reality, it's just hatred. Those are the same thing in Mango again. Racism is hatred for one group over another. Noticing because racism is a judgmental term. Hatred is a non-judgmental term. That doesn't even make sense, Mango. It does. No, it doesn't. Because, because not everyone can be classified as a racist, but everyone has done something bad in our lives. We've all done something hateful, right? What does that have to do with the topic that everyone breathes, but not everyone can breathe underwater? Congratulations. Still breathing. What? What? I'm saying is when you do classify and define someone as being hateful, it's a non-judgmental term. Mango, all roses are flowers, but not all flowers are roses.  Congratulations. Exactly. So that's what that means. That means I'm right, Mango. That's what that means. No, no, no, no. That's what makes it non-judgmental. Um, and actually, when you actually define someone as, as... They're the same class of things. When you define someone as hateful, when you, when you define someone as hateful rather than racist, you're actually helping to solve the problem instead of creating more division and more hate and more... Literally irrelevant. Peel the consequence. We've already gone over that. What? Peel to consequence fallacy, whether or not it has a negative effect or not is completely irrelevant to whether or not it exists. It does. If we're talking about conceptual ideas, yes, it does. No. No, it doesn't. You can appeal to consequences if it's conceptual. Yes, you can. No, you can't. Yes, you can. It's literally fallacy. Appeal to consequence fallacy does not add or subtract to the truth of the statement one way or the other. Stupid. Right. But it's still a perfectly valid point to make that people would agree with the input discussion. People would agree with me at the end of the session. No, no one agrees with me. If you say it's right that an appeal to consequence fallacy stop, stop. If you say it's right that an appeal to consequence fallacy has no impact, stop talking, Mango.   If you say it's right that an appeal to consequence fallacy has no effect on the truth or falsity of a proposition, then literally it's completely irrelevant to the conversation. In order for it to be relevant, it has to have some effect on the truth or falsity of the proposition.  Can I ask you something? Sure. If you are classified as a good person, do you have any bad in you? Sure. Then you're not a good person. All or nothing, Fallacy. That's, it's just no gray areas. Yes, there are. There are lots of them. They're called spectrums. They're all gray areas. They seriously believe in gray areas. Yes. Gray is a color. Congratulations. It's in between black and white. There is no gray areas. Literally gray is in fact a gray area. When you concentrate on gray areas, you're concentrating on confusion. That's all you're concentrating on. There is no gray areas. Your words are confusion. You're either hateful or you're not. It's that simple. No, it's not. Literally just anyone in psychology. It is. If we're in psychology, it is. How does that work in the brain?  Is there like a hateful neuron that gets fired if the hateful neuron is off, then you can't be hateful? That's not what you're doing with neurons. There's no biological consequences. This has everything to do with spiritual matters. If hateful is either on or off, then it has to be a biological thing in the brain, Mango. It has to be a neuron or something. No, not a neuron. No, not at all. Magical pixies.  That's it. There's no gray areas. And if someone tells you that there's gray areas, it's because they're wicked and hateful and they're trying to justify their hateful actions. How dare you, T-Jump, say that there are gray areas? Oh my God. And this is why racism does not exist. Okay, I can't take any more. I'm ready to go to Q&A. You want to go to Q&A now? Yeah. Okay. Well, in that case, we don't have many questions, only a couple, really. So ladies and gentlemen, if you do have any questions for tonight's debaters, now would be a great time to send them as we only have a few. And the stream will be ending very shortly if you don't. So let's go. Let me end this clock then and put the 30 minutes on the clock then. One second, guys. I wasn't prepared for that. Sorry. All right. So, Brute Facts podcast member for four months says, why did Mango leave out the race massacre of Tulsa? That was not a racist massacre at all.  Illegal to a white person and the white people reacted. By killing the black people. You find multiple examples of the same thing happening with the roles reversed. So that's a silly argument. So nothing to do with race. It's got to do with the agreements that they had, that they made with the other white people. They agreed that they were to live separately. And they agreed that none of them would come together at all. And if there was anyone that was going to come together, the other party would come over and stop pillaging. That was just common practice then. T-Jump, do you want to say anything about that? Because we have so much time. It's not racism because the other people do it too. Perfect argument. It's got nothing to do with racism. It's about a breach of agreement. And if you breach that agreement, then we're going to come over and pillage. That's just how it is. Gotcha. Ladies and gentlemen, please send us some super chats. We have plenty of time left in this Q&A and not very many questions. From Samar Rao for $4.99 says, You can't be racist and be a good person. What about the founding father? Sorry. What about the founding fathers? I'd argue they were great. Also, T-Jump, that hairstyle really ain't it. It is it. I got paid for this hairstyle and that is the only legitimate reason to have any hairstyle. I can attest to that. All right. And that's the end of the super chats, fellas. So Walter says, So it's not just redefining racism as a subset of human hatred. It's saying hatred exists, but doesn't have any of the effects that we observe. Racism does actually have. That's for you, Mango. Does it have any effects like racism? You may read again. So it's not just redefining racism as a subset of human hatred. It's saying hatred exists, but doesn't have any of the effects that we observe racism does actually have. Yes, exactly. When you actually define things as hate, you immediately are able to come up with a solution to the problem. But when you define things as racism, it will never end. And there are many people who think that racism will never end because of that. If you define what happened to the Jews as hate, you will be able to find a solution to the problem. If you define the prosecution of Black people in America as hate, you'll be able to find a solution to that problem as well. But if you define it as racism, it's just going to continue. It's never going to end. That's my answer. It's absolutely gibberish. So how does defining it with one word over the other make any difference to the solution to the problem? So let's say we define the Nazis as hateful and sort of racist. How does that solve the problem? Because we can all relate to doing something hateful in our lives. We've all done something hateful. Which has what to do with... But not all of us are talking about racist. And that's why I said racist.  And it doesn't do anything to solve the problem. It just creates more hateful people. But if you define it as hate, we can all relate to hate because we've all done something hateful in our lives. And we can understand that this person isn't the best... We're not answering the question. We mean... The question was, you said defining something as hate gives us an ability to find a solution to the problem. Defining something as racism does not... It's impossible to find a solution to the problem. So let's change the definition or change the word from racism to hate. How does that give us a better solution to, I don't know, the Holocaust? All right, we can all relate to hate. We've all done something hateful in our lives.  And because not all of us can relate to that, a lot of us are going to judge the person that is a racist. But instead, if we flipped it and used hate instead of racism, we can all relate to that. And we would actually come up with a solution to solve our problem.  Like just saying you relate to it doesn't mean you can come up with a solution.  I relate to aging. Doesn't mean I can come up with a solution to aging. What? That's a biological mechanism. It's got nothing to do with... So what's your brain, Mango?  It's not all biological, man. There's spiritual matters involved as well. And this is why when you use the term racism, you're not helping. All you're doing is adding fire to the flames. Gotcha. From Alex Gross for $5 says, Mango, if racism is not real, why is everyone so goddamn mean to Cleveland in Family Guy? I mean, I really don't know. Maybe they're... I know that the show's creator is a comedian, so he's probably looking to make edgy jokes. Not everything is racism. I mean, if I made a Twitter post criticizing Black people, there's a chance for me to lose my job, lose my livelihood, lose everything because of so-called racism.  I got one. Brutefed podcast asked Super Chat, what does Mango call hate because of race? It's got nothing to do with race. It's just hate. And you can apply this to all aspects such as sexism. Yeah, I don't hate pineapple on pizza. I just hate in general, and it just doesn't apply to the one thing that I actually hate. If you hate pineapple on pizza, that's not hate. That's just something that you just don't prefer. It wasn't the point, Mango. All right. Question from Minecraft player for $199 says, how can racism be real if our eyes aren't real? If our eyes aren't real, what? Yes, I believe he's trolling you. Well, I mean, I'm also an octopus. It's just a joke, I'm pretty sure. From Adriana, I'm sorry I can't pronounce this last name, but for $2 says, Mango, do you follow Jesse Lee Peterson? Who's that? JLP. You know that guy? I don't know, that is. No? Oh, man, you're missing out. All right. From Samar Rao for $499 says, question for both on a scale of one to 10, how do you think you performed on this debate? Oh, negative five billion brain cells. I've increased my brain cells to one. Gotcha. Snake was right for $5 says, what's the difference between hate based on race and racism? As I already mentioned, there's no such thing as hate on this. It's all just hatred, all just hatred. From Oliver Catwell for $5 says, Tom, when you took your chair home for the first time, did your parents accept it for what it is, or did they want less ethnic furniture? No, the chair just ate them, they ate my parents. Gotcha. From Samar Rao for $199 says, Mango, can you help me get a girlfriend? Yeah, sure can. Give me help. Subscribe to my YouTube channel. Gotcha. Okay. I'm not sure if this is the name. It says, what? I see where Mango is going with this. He is trying to say people are people no matter what race. Is that what you're trying to say? Oh, sure. Do you want to go with that?     It's a better term to use. I'm probably going off track. But yeah, people are people, yes. Gotcha. From Minecraft player at modern day debate, what is exists? Oh, that's a good question, actually. Mango T, what is exists? Something that's happening now, or something that has happened. Happening. Yeah. You frozen? Yeah. No, something that, something that, you know, resides in objective reality. Interesting. Okay. I got a super chat from Brute Facts podcast. Can colorblind people hate because of color? Look, it's got nothing to do with what all makeup is.  It's nothing to do with the person's race. People have it twisted. They've twisted it. They've, you know, because there was a time in the world where people understood that people had hate. There's no such thing as roses. Roses don't exist. There's just only- In fact, if you study World War II and you read most of the allies' newspapers, they would actually label what the Nazis were doing to the Jews as hate, not as racism or this or that or whatever, just as hate. Go read the old newspapers, man. People back then viewed others as hateful people. That's it. They didn't view them as racist. They didn't view them as sexist. They didn't view them as bigots.  Two T-jumps point. Would you say roses exist or would you say that all roses are just flowers? That's like, why are we trying to like, you can't, it's a rose. It's clearly there's differences. Clearly it exists. We can see it. That's not even a question. From Snake was right for $5 says, How can there be no race based hate? When people explicitly state they hate, certain races. Yeah, again, again, they're part of that bubble that we're all living in. Everybody has this collective understanding that you can hate a specific race and somehow still be a good person. That's delusional. That person needs to go into a psychiatric war. The very fact that you think that you can be someone that's good and also hate someone's race. What question? That was not the question. Yes, it was. No, it wasn't. The question was people specifically say they hate others because of their race. Right, and they never said they're good people. They can admit they're bad people. Okay. Okay, cool.  And they're delusional. They're just hating. They don't actually hate the person's race. It's just that they hate. And they don't, okay, let me, let me explain this. So because when they have hatred in them, they don't know how to define it.  When in reality, they just don't understand that in a conflict within them, the hatred that boils in them, they don't understand it. And so they point the finger at other things and start hating that. Thinking that the hatred stems from that. But in reality, it stems from within. Does that make sense? No. Not at all? No. Not one bit? Not even a little bit.  They're just very confused. They have this inner conflict within them and they are sort of deceiving themselves into thinking that they actually hate that person. When in reality, they have this sort of inner conflict within them and they don't know what it is. Does that make sense? Let's move on. From Adriana Bevaquois for $5. Says Mango. Amazing. Or I should say amazing. Amazing. Please check out JLP. That's Jesse Lee Peterson. He is the founder of White History Month. July just feels white. He also says racism does not exist. Awesome. I guess I'm not alone. Certainly not alone. From Sir Richard... Can I just say, racism is a very new concept. I don't think, I think racism only existed like for the past 60 years. It's never existed. No, it does exist. No, I'm saying the idea of racism it only existed for the past 60 years. Like people only accepted it in the last 60 years. Before that, people would view people like that as just hateful. But that's it. That's all I have to say. Does honesty exist? Does honesty exist? Not in this debate. No. Mango, would you say that honesty does exist in the real world? Um, I don't know. All right. That's fine. Let's move on. From Sir Richard N. Balls, the fifth or fourth. For $2 says Mango, mi boyo is the earth flat. Absolutely. Yes. Now I'm just kidding. It's round. Gotcha. Minecraft player for $199 to both debaters does deadbeat daddism exist? Yeah, I'm sure he jump has a lot of experience around that. Gotcha. From Rockin Woodworks, question. Hate may be part of it, but racism is defined by one thinking they are superior than another based on race. True or not? No. So racism doesn't necessarily mean to think that you're superior. You can be racist and think that you're inferior. So like, you can think that your race is inferior to a different race and still be racist. Uncle Tom kind of a thing. Isn't that in your name? No. Okay. From notorious TBG says, I missed it. Does Mango believe racism exists or doesn't exist? Want to just throw that up for them real quick? It actually exists. No, it doesn't exist at all, not at all. Notorious TBG. Mango does not believe it is. From Brian Witt for $5. Mormonism used to teach the spirit of the Lord, sayeth the Negro, had no right, nor cannot hold the priesthood. How is that not racial discrimination? That's just a belief, nothing to do with races. How is that racist? Like, how does it... Racism is a belief. How does everyone sit there and think that's a racist belief? How? It's just a part of their belief. Who cares? Okay. From Twisted at Key Jump. Is the chair okay? You keep it clean and in good repair? We'll unsubscribe if you are unethical. Read the chair. The chair is immortal. It can't be solid. It's impossible. Gotcha. From D-O-G, from T-Jump. Do you know the world is flat, right? You do know the earth is flat, right? The earth is not flat. Only flat-earth-flurf dumb-dumbs think that the world is flat. Yeah, but you do know it's flat. Why can't I feel any movement then? Well, you can't feel like anything. So, if we're going based off what Mango feels, then nothing exists. But you know. You know, right? You know. All right. The Hatter.  Why does he think it matters what the racism does? It does matter if it doesn't end. So, T-Jump, do you think racism will continue forever? It will forever, it will. No, when all humans die, it will probably be gone. I'm not talking about when humans die. I'm just talking about, you know, as humans. Oh, my God. That would be in the forever. At some point in forever, when all conscious agents die, there will be no way to talk about literally, I'm talking about during the time of human existence. Possibly. Cool. From Lord Dave Dyer. Mango is 100% right. Nazis went after Jews because their narrative required victims. Sound familiar to anyone? T-Jump has not proved anything. Exactly. And from Charles Woods for Mango.  And how would that be different from the definition for racism? You answered your own question.  That's it. How is that different from the definition of racism? What those traditions were or what their impacts were on society. It's everything to do with hate. How is that different from the definition of racism? Racism said, hey, by race, that's not true. It's just, it's just it's only hatred. You can't have hatred and something else. Because when you add something to hatred, all you're doing is you're nullifying the thing that you just added. It doesn't matter. You can be hateful and then you can say, I hate my race.   I hate by that. But ultimately, it's just hate. Does that make sense? When you add something, when you add anything to hate, it nullifies and all you end up with is just hate. Gotcha. Remember, ladies and gentlemen, that Superchats will go to the top of the list. They will be the next thing to write if you said one now. From Matthew Waters, Mango. You can be racist without meaning to. Yeah, it's called the committee. The what? I'm sorry? It's called the comedy act. Comedy act. Gotcha. From Jacob McKenzie, for $5. A new command, the chair giveth thee. Love one another. As the chair hath loved you. So you must love one another. Mango, 316. Got it. The mystery cook. Does racism exist? So the KKK are not racist? No. Aryan Brotherhood are not racist? Skinheads are not racist? Not at all. Not at all. I don't even think that it doesn't exist, as I already mentioned. So look, let's pretend that we all agree that racism doesn't exist. How would you classify the KKK? We'd make up a new term called racism and call them racist. No, no, I said racism doesn't exist. You can't trade a new term. How would you classify them without the word racism? Racist. No, everyone would agree. It's hate. That's all it is. Everything boils down to hate. It's got nothing to do with race. Brute fact podcast asks, does Mango know that he's black? Does what? What? Does does Mango know that he's black? Yes. What's that got to do with anything? The rigged election 2020 says, T-Jump, do you know blacks take slaves in Africa today, according to Boko Raham in Nigeria? Yes, there are lots of slavery all over the world still today. I don't know if that matters. And what's wrong with slavery? Slavery is immoral and evil and bad and makes you bad. If you are someone who's an indentured servitude, what if you willingly go to slavery and you agree to it? That's not slavery. So indentured servitude is not slavery. Indentured servitude is indentured servitude. Slavery is when you have no rights. Right, and what if I willingly accept to have no rights? That's fine, but that's not what he means by slavery. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying slavery doesn't exist either. Most people that are in so-called slavery, they accept the terms and agreements, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.  There you go. Which is irrelevant? What do you mean it is irrelevant? That's what the question was about. No, it wasn't. All right, from the 16th Dock for $5 says, T-Jump, I appreciate your willingness to debate even the most absurd individuals. Thank you, I'm paid for it. Why do it? If it wasn't paid, I wouldn't do it. From notorious TBG says, judging someone based on race is just an oversimplification.  I have no idea what that question means, but I'm thinking they're saying... I think they're trying to describe for you what the phenomena called racism is. Right, and I'm saying it doesn't exist. And when you pretend that it does exist, you're causing more harm than good. Gotcha. Okay, from Snake was right for $2 says, What's wrong with racism as a type of hate? Again, as I already mentioned, when you add things to hate, like for example, if you say hate by race, it doesn't matter because when you add something to hate, the thing that you've added to hate is eradicated. It is nullified. Everything boils down to hate. There's no such thing as hate by race. Gotcha. From Samar Rao for $1.99 says, Thoughts on the movie Kung Fu Panda. Great movie. Best movie ever. Mango. Yeah, great movie if you're under the age of 10. Gotcha. Space is a lie for $10 says, Is Mango trying to say that racism is not a special form of hatred? That we have a made up hierarchy of hatred where we put race based hatred at the top, but we shouldn't. I'm confused. Exactly. Racism is just confusion. It just causes so much confusion in everybody. Wouldn't it be just so much easier if we all just labeled evil people as hateful people? No, because there are different kinds of hate, and it's useful to distinguish between the different kinds of hate. Yes, it's useful to distinguish it in certain circumstances, like in the court of law, or in a textbook, or, you know, but I'm talking about in the social context. Yes, like the law. That's the social context, Mango.  Okay, from Razhender Wild says, Race is a construct? No, because I know there's observable differences between T-Jump and I, so no, I disagree. Gotcha. From Woody Woodpecker says, What does Mango call it when someone hates another person because of their skin color? As I mentioned for the 1000th time, it hates. Gotcha. From Mr. Anderson, racism exists, but who cares? It doesn't exist, and if you think that it exists, for you are the problem, not the solution. Gotcha. From Randy Watkins, does Mango T know what the word means? Racism, that is, said it too many times tonight. Yeah, it has like multiple meanings. It's so ambiguous, and it's up to interpretation, really. Like as I mentioned, if I made a Twitter post criticizing Black people, some people would interpret it as racist, others would interpret it as bigoted or whatever. Like it's all up to interpretation. This is why I'm saying it doesn't exist. It's just a made up playful word that it was created to divide people and not unite us. Gotcha. Last question for the night from Paul Moe, 316 says, Question for Mango, the KKK explicitly state they exist as a white supremacist group. Can you explain how they aren't racist? I guess they just love their own skin color. What's wrong with that?  Okay, that is not hate by race, that is just hate. And we did get a last minute super chat. This will be the last super chat. Don't send any more guys. For $5 from Sir Richard N. Ballas IV says, I applaud you, Mango. You just abolished racism in America. T jump, bad arguments. Thank you so much. There are way too many fighters on the show. He's autistic and he looks at the world through his autistic worldview. And that's really damaging because that's not how the world works, T jump. Right. Time is up. Let me turn that off. Okay, so that will conclude our question and answer portion for the night. And I just want to say thank you to both of you guys for being here tonight. It was a pleasure to host you. I also want to say thank you to the moderators in the chat for keeping the discussion civil. I'm sure you had quite a lively discussion tonight to foster. Thank you to James for creating this platform so much for doing this and creating moderate debates. Thank you to the audience and everybody watching in the live chat and everybody who sent super chats and elevated the conversation. And lastly, just want to say like the video if you loved it, share it if you want to spread it and subscribe as we have plenty more juicy debates coming your way. And I just want to say yeah, keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable everybody. I hope you all have a great night and we'll catch you on the next one.


All right, about Inrant Institute relations or your relations to other groups, why are you so so like hateful towards libertarians when they seem to be the closest ally to your ideas? Well, I'm only hateful to some libertarians. There's some libertarians who I love, who are great, who I support, who I've worked with, who I've been on panels with, who I've done all kinds of things. The ones I hate tend to be the ones who tend to be the rabid anarchists, the people who believe that anarchism is a solution. And as I said, in my debate with an anarchist in Poland, I consider anarchism, and you could include so-called anarcho-capitalism in that, I believe that it's as bad as communism and fascism. I believe that it is the devil. It is really, really, really destructive to human life. I know I've just offended a bunch of you. I can see it on Sebastian's face, but that's the problem of video, right? But that is the reality of what I believe, right? I think anarchy leads to nothing, and I've said this dozens of times. I think anarchy leads to nothing by bloodshed, destruction, bloodshed and destruction. And I think ultimately it leads inevitably to authoritarianism.  I hate that set of ideas. And I'm hostile to particularly intellectuals who try to spread those ideas, and I've tried to interact as little as possible with them. But I don't hate other libertarians. I mean, there are many libertarians, economists, political scientists who, again, I think do good work. Some people at Cato, not everybody. Some people at Phi. I work with Phi. I've worked with Cato. I've worked with lots of different organizations over the years on specific issues, on broad issues that they were good at. But the idea of a big tent, I think dilutes the philosophy to the point where it's meaningless. And as I said, I find anarchy offensive. So I'm not interested in being in a big tent with people I find offensive. So I think that, so I have no, I don't reject, you know, I speak to libertarian groups all the time. I speak to Students for Liberty. I speak to Federalist Society, to Adam Smith Society, all over the place. So I don't consider myself hostile to libertarianism. I consider myself hostile to an alcocapolis. And I consider myself hostile to the idea of a big tent. I think the idea of a big tent is bad. But regarding the anarchism, I think that maybe those people, let me just don't understand it yet. They don't necessarily need to be evil, evil persons, right? I've never said they're evil. I think some of them are evil. I think if you're, you know, you know, hope a few others, I would consider them all. But no, I mean, particularly young people, I don't consider young anarchists evil. I think when you're young and you're still trying out ideas and anarchy has a certain logic to it and a certain rationalistic, you know, logic to it, beauty to it or whatever, sense to it. Yeah, that's why I talk to people who are anarchists, why I tried to, you know, convince them otherwise.  Well, but still, we don't see you cross-posting much with some libertarianism. Like, I think you once told me that you wouldn't, or maybe Tom Woods told me that you would never appear on his show. I will never be on Wood Show. No. Why? Because he's over 40 and he's an anarchist. I mean, that's it. If you're over 40 and an anarchist, I'm not sitting on stage with you.  This is not, these are not neutral ideas. And I said before I'm passionate, I take ideas seriously.  Anarchy is a destructive ideology. I'm willing to tolerate it when you're young, because when you're young, you're still trying to figure out what's true and what's not. And you're experimenting with all kinds of ideas and you're trying to figure it out. At some point, my intolerance disappears and it goes away. And I'm not tolerant of anti-life ideas from people who should know better. And Tom Woods should know better. Now, it's not just that he's an anarchist. It's that he's, you know, he's part of the Mises Institute, which is pro or semi pro slavery in the South, right? It was anti the Civil War. That is, that has, you can find articles that underlying racist agendas, not that Tom Woods is, but the organization is affiliated with is, that are pacifists, which I consider, you know, nutty, the pacifists, the anti-American in foreign policy, every sin in the world, the pro Hugo Chavez.   So I will not deal with people who are over the certain age, let's say 40, who advocate ideas that I consider fundamentally anti-life and who might be confused with the projectivism. So people like Tom Woods, Murray Wattbaud, anybody affiliated with the Van Mises Institute. I mean, I find those ideas worse than the worst ideas of the left. To a large, and to some extent, because these people claim to be Iron Man fans, they claim to be pro-liberty. When they're exact opposite, they're anti-liberal. Now I've become grumpy, right? Now I'm living up to my reputation. It's, it really is, there is a fundamental philosophical, but not just philosophical, in an abstraction. There's a fundamental difference between the kind of libertarian, the Nelka capitalists of Tom Woods, and objectivism. These are philosophies that are completely opposite. They happen to have some agreement on economics. But with all due respect, economics is not that important. And I'm an economist, and it's not that important. But they have no relationship when it comes to morality. They have no relationship in epistemology. They have no relationship with metaphysics. And they don't have any relationship in politics because the one's an anarchist and one, one believes in actually limited government. So, and no relationship in aesthetics. So in 90% of the philosophy were opposed. And you want me to be their friend because of 10%. But I have more in common with leftists than with the Nelka capitalists when it comes to the totality of their ideas. There is two issues with that and issues. I don't point out that don't you think that the more good would do just go and debate him? You don't have to endorse him. And the second point is that- Debating somebody, let me just finish. Debating something is an endorsement. Debating somebody is a sanction. I, you know, there's, and there's no reason to debate him. That's, that's the bigger problem.  Anarcho capitalism is not a legitimate ideology. It's not a legitimate set of ideas. It's not worthy of debate. It is a fringe, marginal, insignificant portion of the world is an archo capitalist. And most people grow out of it relatively quickly. Right? So again, they're not that many over 40. And it's just not worth debating. I mean, I did that debate in Poland. I've done it once. Anybody can go watch it. And if you don't, you know, if, if that's not good enough, then, you know, you're going to have to figure it out yourselves. Yaron hated this debate. He didn't want to come. I was not sure if even this is going to happen. I mean, since then, since then, Yaron mentions this debate like every time. I guess, I guess. I did hate it. And I, and there's a sense in which I'm glad I didn't. There's a sense in which I feel a little dirty for doing it.  I mean, or he couldn't argue against it.  You can check the recording. And at Obiektivism.pl, it was, I don't remember the title, I will post it in the, in the event afterwards. You need to find all you do is do Yaron Brooke Anarchy. And that's the first hit you get on YouTube. All right. And if you want to support this, not so grumpy man in headphones, you can go to YaronBrooksShow.com and check all that. He has a question Adam asked. So I might as well answer it because it's related. He says, couldn't you make the same argument against Objectivism? Friends only small portion of people in the world are Objectivists. True. Absolutely true. And I'm always surprised when people agree to debate an Objectivist. You know, and I always say, when somebody says, I don't want to debate you, Yaron, I would say, I understand him completely. He's got nothing to debate. He's got nothing to gain by debating me. And I don't blame people for not debating me. I go, yeah. I mean, let's say, I don't know, Steven Pinker. Why doesn't Steven Pinker agree to appear on stage with me? Because he's got nothing to gain and everything to lose by it. So I am Objectivism is fringe and small. Absolutely. I happen to be in that fringe and small. If I'm going to go and debate, if I want to grow the movement, I'm not going to grow the movement by going to another fringe and small and even less reputable group than Objectivists, which is then Alcocapolis. I would much rather go to big groups where I can get lots of people like leftists and conservatives. And then I can open people in the middle. And then I can get a lot of people.  I would much rather go to big audiences and big groups and debate big issues. And that happens to be the left and the right. One of the problems that I find with libertarians is they love to argue among themselves. Perfect audience for you and Objectivists to go. And if not, Tom Woods audience of the podcast. I can tell you the audience that has been most successful, the appearance that I made that has been most successful for me by far. It's not even close, right? In terms of subscribers, followers, all either. Is when I first appeared on Dave Rubin. Now, in those days, Dave Rubin's audience has changed. But in those days, who was Dave Rubin's audience? It was left science and reason respecting. That's who the audience, my ideal audience is not religious. Respect, right, reason of science, tilting a little left. That's my best audience. And it's always been my best audience. The problem is getting them in the room because they hear Ein Rand and they run, or they hear capitalism and they run. The beauty of somebody like Dave Rubin is you could get in and they were listening to him. And we had this great conversation, which turned I've got more people have come to me and said, wow, I started reading Ein Rand because of your appearance and Dave Rubin and anything else I've ever done. It's people like that. I would much rather go on Dave Rubin's show than Tom Wood's show. Tom Wood's show, everybody who listens to Tom Woods, not everybody. 70% of people who listen to Tom Woods already know I exist. I've probably listened to something I've already done and decided to dismiss me and go with Tom Woods. What do I gain by going to Tom Woods versus going on, if I could go on Joe Rogan's show? That would be great. Get exposed to millions of new people, people who are generally thinking, generally listening, generally engaged in the culture. That is like a million times better than going to another libertarian event. Mark Skousen wants me to come to Freedom Fest. And Freedom Fest is wonderful, but again, it's this, I want virgins. For those of you who don't know what I mean by virgins, people who've never been exposed to their ideas. People who are new, people who maybe know a little bit, but don't know that much. That's, look, I'm not a philosopher. So my job is not to take people who know something about objectivism and make them really deep intellectuals. My job is to expose people who don't know much about their ideas to their ideas in a legitimate, interesting, legitimate, interesting way. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning, any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims, or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism, and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist roads. Using the super chat, and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to youronbrookshow.com, slash support, or go to subscribestar.com, your onbrookshow, and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next


Hello. Welcome to this week's CMC Markets Currency Snapshot with myself Jasper Lawler. We're going to be looking at dollar yen. There's been a pretty massive development in the U.S. dollar. We've heard comments from the Fed's Bill Dudley that sort of indicated that the Federal Reserve are not so keen to rise interest rates this year while there's so much turbulence in financial markets, he referred to it as financial tightening. And then on the flip side, we had an attempt from the Bank of Japan governor, Koroda, to try and talk down the yen, but it completely failed. And so that's why we want to look at the dollar yen pair here and look at the technical chart setup to see where this could head next. Now, it was a drop in the dollar across the board. We saw the British Pound Rally, the Euro Rally to levels we've not seen in months. But it was particularly notable the drop in the dollar yen, because there had been some deliberate attempts from, as mentioned, Bank of Japan Governor Koroda, in which he suggested that actually they could cut interest rates further into the negative after their recent meeting in which they cut into negative rates for the first time. And he also suggested they could do extra quantitative easing. So a real attempt there to suggest that more monetary easing was on the way, that normally weakens the yen. It completely failed to do so. The dollar yen dropped sharply. And we're now heading towards an important technical support level that we're going to look at in a bit more detail now on the chart. So this is a weekly candlestick chart for dollar yen. Now, you can see we had this rising trend line, which has been touched three times. It's fairly clear cut. And we've seen a sharp pullback away from there. So it's a successful retest of this broken rising trend lines. We broke it, we've come back, tried to get through, failed to do so. Now we're heading pretty quickly back down towards this 116 level. Now, that's pretty massive support. That's been supporting the price for the bulk of 2015, the early part of 2016. If that gives way, because of the steepness of the rally that preceded this sideways movement that we've been in for the last year or so, there isn't really much in the way of support. And we could fall pretty sharply towards the 110 round number handle, which is a peak that we reached midway through 2014. So that's it for this week's CMC markets currency snapshot. We're looking at dollar yen, of course. It's really just a big one of watching out for this 116 handle. If that breaks, we could see pretty sharp move to the downside. If it holds again, we're still in our range. We could push up to the upper end that we've been trading in in the last year or so. What can trigger it? We need to hear more comments from the Fed. We need to look out for what happens at the next Fed meeting and what the Bank of Japan can do to try and to fight against this recent dovishness from the Fed.