Hey you, reader of this comment, do not click on the link Alex has posted because by your own moral system - it's possible you're undeserving to click there. Why? I don't know, it's your moral system not mine. You tell me if you think you deserve to click there. Ask yourself this, do you REALLY deserve this?
Im a big fan of how much you tend to challenge your guests in this podcast, especially in the more philosophy/religion oriented episodes, and have to say that I was pretty disappointed with this one. Maybe it's because it's mostly focused on (American) government policy and statistics, but it felt like Coleman got to sneak In several sketchy arguments that you didn't really have the knowledge to push back on. The most egregious is the Yemeni restaurant argument - Coleman should be perfectly aware that US discrimination laws already have exceptions for those kinds of businesses and that it's not a particularly hard distinction to make. Hiring bias is another - pretending that the problem is solved if there are no names in the CV is preposterous and not at all the point of the studies. The bias will still be there if applicants get interviewed or hired.
Agree or disagree with Hughes, he's a calmly passionate thinker who considers his positions carefully, is open to debate, and doesn't consider having an opposing opinion something that makes you a stupid or a bad person. The world needs more people like him, and more conversations like this! I wish it was twice as long.
@@realbangbang Here's mine, it's pretty minor in the scheme, but that's how the majority of leftist disagreement is. It's certainly not bad faith. "Race certainly shouldn't be relevant, but the fact remains it is... In my family home, South Gate california, black families were being refused the sale of homes at least through the 60s. I can't claim superior knowledge about Jersey, but in California the American Sanctuary state, black families were systemically prevented from accruing any form of generational wealth, while my family's ability to do so was protected by law. That is an unfair advantage, in living memory. How do we not call this institutional racism? Even if we pretend it all ended 60 years ago, 60 years ago is fucking recently.... My grandma absolves herself by saying she didn't know, but not only did she benefit, but I did too. Reparations matter. Especially in the US. Not cash reparations, but access to education, for example. Your guest is so weird. He's right about how class issues divide us all, but he's using it to try and hide other issues, that's pretty oof. Intersectionality will free us. It started as intersectional feminism, but their main point was that all these issues intersect and they were right. It's a gordian knot, and if we only tug at one string at a time, we run the risk of making the knot tighter and harder to undue.... It's good that we have him to tug on the strings of class, it's not one person's job to undue the whole knot, and that's why it's good actually that so many leftists are focused on so many different issues. It's unfortunate that he seems to think of the rest of us as misguided, though. Our infighting is the best." Black families, by and large, have not even been allowed to accrue generational wealth until a generation that is still mostly alive today. Generational wealth is the majority of wealth in this country. We don't often recognize it because today boomers hold the vast majority of it. But this is more than a thumb on the scale, the law might be equal now today, but the playing field still just isn't, not by a long shot. That's why it matters, because we still have a chance to make it even, and we can't actually do that by being colorblind.
Kids being colour blind in the sense that they don't treat you any different based on race only applies if those kids are used to being in a multiethnic environment. If you're the only black kid in a school you will be treated differently. If you go to parts of rural china where they've never seen foreigners, the children will always be pointing at you and shouting "foreigner" because you're unusual to them. Another issue is how well integrated a multicultural society is, there are still in-group out-group dynamics that cause tension; different races form cliques in school, speak a different language etc.
I believe what he means is that children don’t understand stereotypes linked to certain groups, so a child in rural china or Nigeria would see a white person as strange but not have any information to judge them negatively or positively. Children typically don’t have a sense of danger that why they can play with strangers easily , now in the process of teaching children safety, Parents can teach bias but it takes a while for it to set in , probably junior high school and depends on the intensity. Some may argue teaching children about race may prevent this which I agree but 2 problems arise. Race and ethnicity are complex topics to teach and takes years to fully understand so how do you simplify it without teaching something wrong, also present methods of teaching focus more on racial injustice than understanding differences. This creates an even more detrimental effect on children than the biases their parents pass on directly or indirectly.
That's missing the point. He's saying children don't judge character based on race and don't see race as a barrier for friendship etc. I had a great example of this when I visited a small Kenyan village for a few weeks with my daughter who was 6 at the time. Most of the kids there had literally never seen a white person IRL, only on tv, and being Swedish we are pretty much as white as it gets. So the children was all over her, curious about her blond straight hair, her skin, her strange language etc etc. But not one of them assumed she was stupid, or smart, or wouldn't want to play with them, or wouldn't like their food and so on. There was endless fascination with her race, but none of it was racist. She had friends everywhere in no time at all, while I had to work much harder to get over the social barriers in the adult world.
The way I see it countries, that are foreign are still nice to visit, because they've got a respect of persons regardless of who these persons are. When you move somewhere culture, language, and norms all get in your way as you integrate. But as someone who lives in Miami brother is strong division by way of language, where you could easily see how people that speak exclusively English or Spanish divide themselves up, even if by preference, I don't see that as a problem. It's kind of like complaining that cats and dogs don't get along. They don't understand each other. I don't know what else we can do. Hopefully the cultures would adopt a feeling of respect for the misunderstood. But it's ridiculous to assume you just become friends with someone you can't talk to.
@@butterflyvision3084 Yes, that kind of curiosity can be wholesome. But it doesn't last forever. Say that instead of just visiting for a few days your daughter enrolled in a Kenyan school as the only non-Kenyan there. Do you seriously think she wouldn't be in danger of being singled out, or have trouble integrating? Racism as a belief system is indeed something that's taught, but it didn't come from nowhere. Tribalism and in-group preferences come naturally to people, even kids, and it can absolutely get ugly. If you work in early schools, especially very homogenous ones, you'll see kids with any sort of visible difference (accent, skin color, looks, neurodivergence) get pestered relentlessly. Some of them learn to deal with it or manage to integrate, but not all.
Suggestion from a fan: Alex please ask your editors to show on screen the graphs or text or images that are referenced by the guest. Kind of like how Joe Rogan has it. That adds further contextual depth to the conversation. Thanks!
Blinding in hiring is great. We should do that as much as possible. But a huge piece of this conversation is missing. Where does the talent pool come from? And are people given equal (or at least good) access to the education and resources that would qualify them in the first place? We've made progress certainly. But oppotunity without education is meaningless. And which community you are born into still matters.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn “equality of opportunity” You will never reach equality of opportunity in a nation as large as America. It is a pipe dream especially since the overall wage gap is only widening .. just examine various zip codes and you will see large disparities .. redistribution of wealth seems like a very messy idea - when in history has that ever worked?
You can’t ever have fully equal opportunity. It would require communist like control over resources and schools. You can improve those that are doing bad, specifically if they are tax payer funded. It wont ever been fully equal though. The good thing is it doesn’t need to be.
I love these sorts of comments because if you've ever been in the kind of schools where these "undeserved" people are you quickly understand it's got nothing to do with anything but the kid themselves. Even people in education want to get out of these places as soon as possible because they know there's nothing to be done.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn I disagree, equality of outcome is not a fair or realistic solution because it has never existed. Culture plays a major role in opportunities people are interested in. If you break down demographics to their barest minimum, these disparities exist even within racial groups. The location where a group resides and their family heritage plays a major role in it. I believe the best solution is to expose people of all communities to take various opportunities and provide them with support for which ever they’re interested. Equal outcomes would not solve the supply problem or the family problem. And disparities does not always equate racism as for example, I won’t expect a majority of abortion providers or male gynecologist to be of Islamic heritage due to their cultural background. Trying to employ more won’t change the supply side
I'd like it if you'd interview someone from the other side of this debate, as you've interviewed several anti-woke activists already. EDIT: I am not saying that Coleman Hughes is an anti-woke activist, but several people he has had on in the past definitely fit that bill.
"Of this debate" if you think we're being treated to guests on either side of some single two-sided debate I don't think you're paying much attention to the channel
As a brit and as someone who has grown up in London (perhaps the most multiracial society in the world) the idea of affirmative action, or segregation in the name of social justice was and is mind blowing. It seems like putting out a fire with more fire?!
@@Llooktook why would you think the idea of equality of outcome to fight for those who have been historically and continuously in a position of disadvantage mind blowing, and im saying this as a brit who has grown up in London. Are you also against the idea of contextual offers for university students who live in disadvantaged areas too?
@@Llooktook I agree completely. There is no need to focus on race when you could just as easily categorize people by where they live, their income, or any other meaningful factors. Why should wealthy black people get more stuff from the government than wealthy white people? They’re not at a disadvantage. They don’t need affirmative action. The poor people with no opportunities in an economy where every job requires something they don’t have? Those are the people who need help.
The main takeaway from the callback studies is that it indicates a racial bias that continues into the workplace. Blind hiring for the first stage of applicants doesn’t address that racial bias which would be present once the applicant is hired.
Yup, they really missed the point of those studies. Bias doesn't stop being an issue after callback - in most cases follow-up interviews (and even being hired as you say) would still expose the applicants to the same conscious and unconscious biases. I'm also surprised that neither of them mentioned the various reasons (besides racial profiling) that companies have to want to know an applicant's real name. Background and social media checks are extremely common nowadays and would be impossible if you tried to hire blind.
Theoretically you should have blind metrics every step of the way: school, university, hiring and promotions. Among other measures to make sure there is equal opportunity. In practice, it can be difficult. But blind hiring is definitely an improvement.
@@samalama5000well the first idea that came to my mind is that you have those done by separate HR people. One person checks purely off of nameless résumé’s while the other uses the names to look at backgrounds. Then do a phone interview instead of in person in order to avoid visual bias. Of course, vocals can also bias someone, but I’m not sure if text interviews are necessary.
@@steggyweggy That does sound better but still runs into similar issues and comes at a cost to the company. How would we be sure that bias wouldn't influence the background investigation?
Here to back the latinx comment, we all considered it a type of Newspeak slur. Latino is already gender neutral when used for a group. It was very insulting to imply our language was toxic.
I don't personally know any progressives that use latinx. I've seen it used on a business from once talking about being a "latinx owned business". The subject is as absurd in the level of criticism as it is to be criticized. No one really actually uses it or cares.
I use a survey on this in class to show the class divide around political correctness and how elite and on the ground linguistic values and norms often differ.
Agreed, the Spanish language is very clear and has a variety of ways to express complex thought. Reducing the language because of mere American social grievance is absolutely disgraceful.
I'm not entirely convinced that external threats are reliably good at uniting people. The cold War was a bit before my time, but my understanding was that gay people were often persecuted in countires of either side of it, with the USA thinking that gay people were communist spies sent to corrupt the culture, and Soviet countries sometimes viewing gay people as capitalist decadence. And didn't the US have Japanese internment camps during WW2? It could be the case that it is true more often than it is not, but I think that requires some analysis, since there are certainly cases of divisions getting deeper despite being faced with external threats.
Aren't all your examples just once in-group people got labelled as the collaborators of the external threat? That they're viewed as "not properly in-group", you know, they're supposed the to be enemy within, the fifth column, etc. In this sesne, an external threat is uniting the people beacause the marginalized are conveniently not considered to be part of the people proper, or the silent majority, what have you. It's the old trick of Bismarck, negative integration: just make some enemies, then your people will consolidate.
I am stupid or does the US fail to acknowledge net worth and annual income as the most driving factors of privilege? I am from germany and it is normal that some laws or governmental supports require you to disclose your income in order to be alligeble for those kinds of supports?
Well we do have to disclose income in order to receive aid from government programs, but Americans that care about social justice seem to think race and gender are more important proxies than income.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the people in America who need help the most will ever be allowed to get it. We have a very brilliant and meticulous system in place that demolishes the unlucky and impoverished.
A lot of Americans believe that if you just work hard, you'll rise to the top. Helping the poor, then, is throwing away your money - if they were able to make use of it, they'd have climbed the ladder already.
The reason government gets involved in these things (often times ineffectively) is because relying on the individual themselves (an employer for instance) on self-enforcement is inherently reliant on that enforcer acting in good faith. This country (the US) has never been great at good faith. Great points raised, dont get me wrong. It's the lack of there ever being a well structured/considered alternative to government stepping in where he loses me.
In short: isn't it location/income/luck? and then that correlates strongly with race due to old and modern factors based on combinations of injustice, including a lot of racism.
Yeah you've got it backwards though base your social policies on class and you'll help a given race in proportion to its disparity otherwise you'll leave poor whites in poverty...use better proxies
Not really. It's mostly quality of education dictated by cultural values. Definitely luck in the sense of the family and proximity you are born into and whether they teach the importance of education. You can argue that cultures value education less due to past injustice but I don't see how that changes the fact that the required solution is better education in any case so that people are self determined to offer their goods and services in trade with others.
@kjamestaylor How so? Early New Deal Policies specifically excluded African Americans. These policies made a clear path to homeownership and the concept of the middle class in America. Why would the ripple effect stay in past? If you own a home which passed down generations. You can pull equity from your home for college, starting a small business or emergencies. Something you can't do when you rent or are mandated by government policy to only buy depreciating homes.
I agree, racists should voluntarily stop their racist hiring practices, I don’t understand why they won’t and I refuse to get the government involved. I am very smart and work for the heritage foundation btw.
There’s racist people for sure, but did you not catch he was talking about unconscious bias, which is different than conscious bias aka what you’re talking about
@@shreenybeany1751 even if I grant the unconscious bias is always totally not conscious and not backed up by post hoc justifications those people create in their minds: what about the “conscious” racists? Should we allow them to deny people careers based on race?
@@shreenybeany1751if someone unconsciously breaks your legs, are your legs not still broken? Most racism, I like to believe, is unconscious. When you look at sentencing disparities between black men and white men, I like to believe that those judges who have essentially created those statistics at least THINK they are acting unbiasedly. That said, do you think the black man with the 60% longer sentence for the same crime really gives a 💩 if the judge has self actualized and is in touch with his inner biases?
Coleman's deflecting on the hiring standards point. The restaurant hiring family members that happen to be Yemeni is not not hiring them on the basis of race. For the Italian restaurant example, there are already carve outs in the law to hire certain classes of people if it's relevant for the job. Hooters isn't going to be made to hire men. Current anti-discrimination legal standards already handle these cases, he's trying to obfuscate that to make a broad attack against fairness standards.
I also found the example confusing. Expecting small family businesses to keep to the same standards and scrutiny as corporations is bizarre and not something anyone seriously involved in these conversations would be advocating for. Also, I'm not sure why the government couldn't mandate bias-blindness procedures for companies above certain thresholds. If they're so advantageous, where is the harm in making them compulsory? I expected Alex to ask these questions and I can't lie, I was disappointed at how much the guest was able to get away with unchallenged.
This is the only way Hughs operates, especially when being interviewed by someone less familiar with race policy in the US. He straw mans and distorts the situation so he can sound more reasonable. He absolutely knows better about the ethnic restaurant example, and Alex sadly does not pick up on it.
He reacted to the question whether a government should implement this. He argues that a government wouldn't look at the details of such a business to be able to hire one ethnicity and therefore argues against the statement.
Give people healthcare, housing, yes maybe UBI and access to food/water that isn't going to give them and their children cancer and none of these problems will manifest themselves. "BUT the state will have too much power" ok fair enough. Democratize our workplaces so that the workers determine where the fruits of THEIR labor are spent and we will have all of these things and more.
I mostly agree. I think the majority of modern American racism is based on social class and culture that is heavily influenced by social class. The negative (and positive) associations between race and social class should go away in a generation or two after socioeconomic equality between races has been reached. > There's a much smaller number of people who (even with good education) are biased towards their own race for solely biological reasons, and the only way I see a world without those people is after all races eventually (more or less) combine into one.
“Democratize workplaces” - In certain workplaces, especially government workplaces only, right? Or do you think it should be more widespread, entering into private organisations?
I have little faith that such a system could ever exist successfully for very long due to traits that will always be a part of human nature: fatigue and apathy. Direct democracy takes a lot of work. Inevitability, the majority of people will prefer to outsource most of that work to representatives. As with government, so also with labor. Soon, you end up with executives again. This will never not happen. Hierarchies will always manifest. Governments who forbid them from existing will find their workforce and economy far less productive and competitive than economies where they’re allowed to exist. Anarchist libertarians have the same problem. The system they want can only exist if the population is interested in spending far more of their time and effort on communal governance than they ever actually will. Socialists and anarchists are so close to each other on this matter that they almost bend the horseshoe into a closed circle.
@MachFiveFalcon Black culture is terrible. Period. That's the problem. No one wants to be around blacks because of their behavior. Some blacks with money are even worse.
8:23 not very far in and curious to see how it will progress but immediately this man gives me a “smart person for dumb people” vibe. There’s a few reasons for this, the summary of his ideas have a lot of appeals to intuition, this alone usually raises my skepticism. Also the first question is immediately met with an obvious, to me at least, canned answer. This quadrant statement seemed to be loaded in the chamber but only shared similar rhetorical signifiers with Alex’s question. As if he has trained himself to pick out keywords that can be tied to canned statements he wants to make. I felt this quadrant answer didn’t meaningfully address the actual question and came across a bit as nonsense only sharing some terms and themes with the question. I think he wanted to set up this framework but because it wasn’t a natural response to the actual question it falls apart when Alex asks a follow up. Curious to see how the rest of the conversation plays out but wanted to drop a comment about the, in my opinion, poor first impression
Certainly the most suspect part is when an intellectual that way sits back and thinks of how some majorly large forces on the outside actually operate. Conceptually the law might be too hard to enforce, but is that true in practice? Maybe not, likely it only comes up when people have been pretty noticeably racist for awhile, for instance in the case of what they've been talking about.
10:12 hmm so far he continues to make some pretty poor arguments that once again aim at intuition and people’s weakness considering large numbers and statistics. A single year over year revenue can hold as many predictive problems as selecting for race and gender when determining “need”. Once again this is about using things that we feel intuitively are more linked. Business revenue and financial need feel more fairly associated because they both carry the signifier of usually being measured in dollars. However without additional data it’s certainly possible that race and gender have a higher correlation with financial need than decreased earnings. Especially if you are limiting it to just one year over year metric. Then even if it was found to have a higher predictive utility there might be a cost issue in information collection and processing that would reduce the overall benefit and create a less effective outcome even if you can direct the total benefit more efficiently. The truth is a rollout of billions to millions is a lot more complicated than “they should have given it to people who need it and not just black people” but as a sound bite it sure sounds good
37:06 I’m further in and this is a terrible conversation to be frank. Interesting, but terrible. I’ve seen Alex push back far harder on others in past conversations and I’m not sure why the kid gloves on somebody who is, really just making a bunch of stuff up. He is constantly strawmanning his opposition, making contradictory claims right after one another, and crumbling under the extremely light questioning Alex is doing. I don’t want to just list examples because it’s almost every claim he makes. Why are dolls and cartoons implied to be worthless indicators for a child’s reaction to race? What’s a better indicator? If you read any opposing views at all you will understand the opposition to “color blindness” is not “we can see people are different colors” not even remotely it’s that these social groups related to ethnicity often do have generally different experiences and “color blindness” can be used nefariously but sometimes unintentionally to ignore these unique perspectives and challenges. He also accuses opposition of trying to frame things only through gender or race (which already is multiple layers of analysis and is only one method of analysis if you group everything you don’t like into one category based on the related trait of your distaste) but then uses this as grounds that we should reject those frameworks entirely. This amounts to saying “people are restrictive in their analysis and we can fix this by being restrictive in our analysis”. I can’t know a persons mind but I can make a reasonable guess, if he has read about this subject, read his opposition then he is probably aware that his claims are unfounded but rather is constructing his arguments to be marketable versus accurate. I’d be surprised if these beliefs are genuinely held but of course I can’t know that…
@@barryoffeastenders interesting line of questioning. Do you believe I have no grounds to have an emotional response to the conversation? Should I feel neutral when I think something is doing very little to push back on bad ideas? I’m curious why you feel my race is significant. I’ll play along though, I felt relatively mild about the conversation, I just type a lot. Also I’m white, but not American. Hopefully your curiosity is satiated
I think Hughes' example of a "low information/high stakes" scenario where you need to judge people on race, is very telling of his politics. Statistics consistently show that terrorism in the US is predominantly done by white people, especially far-right or white supremacist white people (This appears to also be true in the UK but I am less familiar with their statistics). So the only reason to assume that a terrorist would look like "Ramy Youssef" over "Meryl Streep" is if you were racist towards middle eastern people (Or Islamophobic, which is not technically a race-based hatred, but many islamaphobes do not differentiate between Muslims and middle eastern people in general). I am actually disappointed in Alex for not calling him out on this, he just passively, and almost reflexively, agrees with this blatantly and obviously racist statement. It left a very sour taste in my mouth for the entire interview. I find that when it comes to certain topics Alex is able to ask very pointed questions to make the interviewer uncomfortable, but when given a very racist statement here he just says "sure, sure" and moves on.
Please point to me when he stated that most terrorists are arab or muslim. To me, it seems like he only said that if a cop knows the race of a suspect and then profiles for that race, that'd be the logical thing to do in a high stakes situation. I may have misunderstood the video, but I didn't hear anything islamophobic.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nnit’s at around 5 minutes in. He roughly says “if there’s a bomb in Times Square the cops can guess the guy is middle eastern and/or Muslim“. Which seems to indicate he believes middle eastern people commit acts of terror in the us at significantly higher rates than white people, which is a racist assumption because it is demonstrably false
Not sure about the UK, but in the EU the vast majority of terrorism is jihadism. I would wager the reason the number is so low in the US is the fact that radical islamists are not even getting into the country in the first place.
This was an interesting listen. My takeaway was that he’s happy to use dismissive language and lazy characterisations to make his point and that very much diminished any chance of me genuinely taking him seriously. He indicated that Critical Race Theory calls for the destruction of many societal structures. This was scaremongering, plain and simple. He claimed that nursery kids are explicitly having the idea that their respective races were historically oppressed/oppressors shoved down their throats. I’m highly sceptical of that. It sounds like a Fox News headline. He’s happy to refer to ‘wokeness’ in a low-key derogatory way that removes any context of the complexity of its focus or background. He seems to completely miss the point that many employers do not attempt to mask the name/race of prospective employees yet seems to see little problem with simply letting supposedly well-meaning employers organise this themselves when they clearly have little intention or incentive to do so. He lazily characterises CRT and more generalised critiques of the make-up of society as using race as a means to judge people. I don’t think this is at all the thrust of these critiques. He seems to have a very one-dimensional and lazy opinion of these critiques. In short, I really wasn’t impressed.
He's actually extremely fair to the term "wokeness." Wokeness hasn't been a positive thing for over a decade now. There is no complexity to it whatsoever. What you're implying we should all go back to is to think about that word in its WOKE 1.0 phase 30 years ago (even that phase of it, it was a dumb concept; well, as smart as the phase "born-again" or "red-pilled"). Honestly, that's like asking the world to all go back to thinking about the word gay the way it was used in GAY 1.0 back in the days of Queen Elizabeth I, when it meant "happy" or "glad." WOKE-CURRENT EDITION, is actually the hodgepodge ideology that is exemplified by an oversimplistic activism which wrongly believes in the boogeyman of "systemic oppression" (while utterly failing at actually pointing out actual oppression and coming up with workable solutions to them). Case in point: affirmative action. A most unintelligent idea that even the dodo bird would find intellectually insufficient. Wokeness 5.0 or whatever the current edition is these days, is all sound and fury and lots of words words words and articles and conferences and power point presentations and diversity trainings and news articles and protest histrionics, all of which amount to nothing. It has divided American society more, and now has made its way over the pond to Europe, over the Pacific to the Far East, all over, etc. and have begun to infect the youth there. Luckily most of us non-Americans are still smart enough to see its politburo roots, especially those of us from former iron curtain countries.
@@user-yp6yr9te7l wokeness 5.0, as you call it, is a caricature. A boogie man made up by people who don’t want to spend more than 15 seconds considering why the world might be more complex than they would like it to be. People who think it’s somehow reasonable to pretend that the racial segregation that occurred within living memory of a huge number of people has not resulted in systemic effects that prolong the impact of overt historical racism.
The problem with this line of thinking is that the historical ruling class of Great Britain and the United States established and reinforced the distinction between White and Black. The consequences of that history of oppression is the reason that racial categories are still relevant today. The enormous wealth gap between these groups (again created and sustained by the ruling class) is a prime example but similar disparities exist in all areas of society (e.g. healthcare outcomes, childhood mortality, education, credit)
Reading through the comments section it's clear that much of the audience are not really "critical thinkers" they have just bought into easy "critical" narratives from one side of the political aisle, and stopped considering perspectives to the contrary. Many platitudes, deflections, and at least one person calling him a racial slur (but in a progressive way so it's apparently fine).
@@jamesdavis3851 Good place to start is by having some humility. People commenting platitudes or calling him naive to reject his ideas minutes after this hour long video came out clearly lack humility.
@@notcesr7136 Was looking for advice, sorry I haven't read the comments that are bothering you (probably good not to). Can't judge my own humility... books something?
The whole “white allies need to shut up and listen when ‘POC’ talk about race” thing goes out the window when we say the wrong things about race, doesn’t it 😅 A lot of heated white people in this comment section proves just that.
Black people don't know who this dude is for a very important reason. This guy isn't some spokesperson that mirror the popular sentiment among black people. His audience is white conservatives. Alex should talk to FD signifier. Someone who does have clout with black people. I got a good idea what he'd say about this dude though.
Sure these cell phone videos are catching the scene midway. But then people are learning to turn on their phones and dash cams immediately before the cop walks up to their car door. Also we get an FOIA for the chest camera film and find out the cops turn off their cameras, delete the footage, or we get the cop's footage. Then, with the camera footage from the victims and bystanders and the cop's chest cam, we see what happened. If the cop was in the wrong, by public standards, not police standards, the police force never, not once, adjusts their training policy for what the public will find acceptible to consent to by the handling of the police. Also, the police force never fires the cop. The cop gets to resign and just rehires at the next police station in the next county over, etc. There's zero accountability held to the police force at all that the public finds acceptable. And Coleman, you know this is the point of what the public is addressing. So stop lying with these BS responses on this topic. This is why people asked to defund the entire police force because the police force couldnt police itself. Its the catholic church rape scandle all over again but in blue uniforms. At least the CC relocated these rapist priests back into Rome and exhiled them there. These police officers are still driving around our neighborhoods and our government still allows qualified immunity to be the law of the land. So yes there will be civil unrest when the police and the government are in bed together to ignore the will of the populace. It was never about these bad cops doing what they did, it was the fact that the system of governance to hold these cops accountable continues to be broken despite all these years of cell phone, dash cam, and chest cam footage of these bad apples getting away with it. Funny how much of a vacuum was left in this discussion by Alex to not point this out. 27:00 You can be religious and Secular. Secularism is just the inclusion of all people to the discussion of how to live the good life through governance. Theocracies are innately non-secular because they are explicilty non-inclusive to every other religious and nonreligious group. Secular governments are the safest governments for religius pluralism. Theocracies crush different cultural religions in every count in recorded history. 27:50 God and Country are no longer cool because the unifying factor here is that people are asking these entities to justify their implied power over the populace. When these entities cant, like religions, gods, governments, etc. Then we, the people, start to remove these power structures over us to a level we, the people, would consent to being governed. The reason that younger generations are challenging these systems is because the older generations have too much to risk at addressing these issues. The older generation have careers and family to care for and cant risk political activism to change the system so these older generations rely on the bravery of younger generations to do the work that the older generation refuses to do. As Thurmberg pointed out. How dare you be cowards to have to rely on children to fight your battles and to fix your messes. We should be in school, not on picket lines or testifying to the UN. 30:30 The reason that populations are uncivil during peace time is because the powers that the voting populace gave their government during a time of crisis was to be temporary, not perminant. Coleman knows this, Alex knows this...and yet neither pointed this fact out. Which shows their ignorance in interview discussions that you can challenge and still be civil. Being agree able is not being civil because there's no conflict of ideas. You're civil and respectible in the face of adversity, not the absence of it. The populace is having political upheavals because the voting populace is trying to force their government to relenquish its temporary powers to address a temporary crisis. That's all it is. We want to the government to not force its populace into a police state as a the norm.
Great strides have been made in combatting racism, but they're being undermined by gross economic inequality which resuscitates systemic racism of the past that might have disappeared without that economic inequality. If you truly want equality of opportunity, all children must be given as similar a chance of succeeding as possible - and that success when manifested in adulthood must not be used to create a whole new generation of inequality.
Racism is a cancer in our society. Big money in politics in a cancer in our politics. The military industrial complex and wall street is a cancer to our society.
I think the issue with colorblindness is that it's used to throw away the idea that people face discrimination based on their race. I don't think feigning colorblindness is a pathway to actually make a colorblind society, and I think the reality is that it's more feigning than actually being earnest.
Did you listen to a single minute of the interview? You can't feign the colourblindness he advocates, which is that we should try to treat people without regard to race, especially in terms of public policy. That is exactly what MLK fought for.
@@wichitalineman86 yeah I listened to the whole thing. YOU must have read my statement and YOU disregarded it. I am all for doing things to FORCE colorblindness (like not having names on resumes and anonymous applications) within processes but it's impossible to do that with everything. I am just pointing out how "colorblindness" is used to remove race from discussion while a significant portion of this country VOTE based (in part) on their hatred of POC. I agree with the idea that uplifting people economically MAY help mitigate the bigoted beliefs if they don't have stereotypes associated with being poor and uneducated. I fail to see any solution aside from this basic idea that the guy presented - and I don't think it's simply because I didn't get it.
@daniel-panek But you are just claiming it's being used that way without any evidence. And sure, there's going to be one offs in any group that think crazy. But the large majority of people advocating for colorblindless aren't doing it under some guise of racism. Especially since what Coleman is advacting for would certainly help minorities. And so even if they are using it as a guise for racism, I'm kind of okay with it since they are actually helping minorities, even if they don't realize it.
@@daniel-panekwith all the hatred and disparagement directed towards white people in the modern day, I’d say POC are definitely not at the sharp end of the current poor state of race relations.
To me he’s talking sense, thanks for the interview. I didn’t teach my son that he’s an oppressor. I taught him why humans have different skin. He has a basic understanding on melanin in humans and ancestry. He thinks it’s a cool thing about being human. He’s like me and has bright red hair. He knows that roughly only 5% of the UK have natural red hair like him. He’s proud of being ginger ❤.
This is incredibly frustrating to watch, for all the reasons that are obvious the moment this guy shows up. Nobody is arguing Yemenis or Italians or whoever else can’t hire whoever they want. Small family businesses can do whatever, no one cares. These laws apply to larger businesses. It’s fine that ideologically he objects to government intervention, but the reality is that if it weren’t for the Civil Rights Act, America would still have segregated restaurants and golf clubs. And he knows goddamn well that people very much did care that the NBA is so heavily black. It was a point of controversy until at least about the year 2000 if not later, and actually the NBA was dying on its feet until they revitalized it by hyping up the race-based Magic vs Bird, white vs black thing. I wouldn’t expect Alex to know that, but Coleman does and is pretending not to because conservative ideology is leading his every opinion. Which is fair enough, but it’s frustrating that he’s just lying.
Your comment is incredibly frustrating to read. Coleman isn't referring to late 90s state of things, but to the 2020s state of things. Thinking that Coleman is an American Conservative is even more frustrating.
@@user-yp6yr9te7lhe might not personally be a conservative his talking points the people who pay him the think tanks he work for are all explicitly conservative
@@shelovinthecrew They are also talking points of independents, libertarians and centrists, and also centre-Left liberals. He doesn't work for any think tanks. And I would caution against any application of the association fallacy. It also does not matter if something is conservative or liberal. It only matters if the conservative point is correct, or if the liberal point is correct, about a certain thing. But that is moot because his points are not exclusive to Conservatism.
@@user-yp6yr9te7l im not attributing anything to him I just fundamentally disagree with the things he’s saying bc he’s consistently one of the hackedut pundits around engages in gross obfuscation
Race certainly shouldn't be relevant, but the fact remains it is... In my family home, South Gate california, black families were being refused the sale of homes at least through the 60s. I can't claim superior knowledge about Jersey, but in California the American Sanctuary state, black families were systemically prevented from accruing any form of generational wealth, while my family's ability to do so was protected by law. That is an unfair advantage, in living memory. How do we not call this institutional racism? Even if we pretend it all ended 60 years ago, 60 years ago is fucking recently.... My grandma absolves herself by saying she didn't know, but not only did she benefit, but I did too. Reparations matter. Especially in the US. Not cash reparations, but access to education, for example. Your guest is so weird. He's right about how class issues divide us all, but he's using it to try and hide other issues, that's pretty oof. Intersectionality will free us. It started as intersectional feminism, but their main point was that all these issues intersect and they were right. It's a gordian knot, and if we only tug at one string at a time, we run the risk of making the knot tighter and harder to undue.... It's good that we have him to tug on the strings of class, it's not one person's job to undue the whole knot, and that's why it's good actually that so many leftists are focused on so many different issues. It's unfortunate that he seems to think of the rest of us as misguided, though. Our infighting is the best.
@@Bill-ni3esThey are but historic redlining policies forced many black people into neighborhoods that were considered less desirable. This could be because of anything ranging from environmental polution to poor neighborhood schools. If you look at maps of the racial makeup in American cities, neighborhoods are still extremely segregated even though those redlining policies have theoretically ended (every now and then, some sort of discrimination that continues today gets brought to light but its unclear how widespread that is). And then neighborhood schools are, in part, funded based on property taxes. So many poor schools continue to be underfunded and more well off schools get better funding. We have programs that pour more funding into schools in these neighborhoods, but a lot of the problem is that they're starting off with crumbling infustructure and less experienced staff and in communities that have traditionally not cared as much about education because they haven't seen how education can help lift them out of poverty, and it turns out that the amount of additional funding they need to get caught up to these better schools is way more than what they're getting.
@@lexaray5 Is the way these funds are being managed, play a part in creating this inferior education system? Does the community issue of not valuing education lead to corruption and mismanagement? I know of several countries where money allocated to education, does not reach its intended purpose and simply pouring more money into the problem will just make corrupt individuals more wealthy.
Having researched that unjust law of black people not being able to own property - it was not only limited to black people though. In fact, land ownership was prohibited by 'aliens not of the white race'. That would include asians. So why are asians now being discriminated against? Asians are being restricted access to colleges. Why are asians excelling despite the huge injustices of the past and not being able to build generational wealth?
11:52 to 13:48 - Coleman Hughes acknowledging that racism exists, citing solid evidence for it existing, and providing a solution to remedy it. 12:42 to 13:52 - Companies virtue signal caring about racism but don't implement this common sense antiracist practice. 36:37 to 36:17 - Coleman says what colorblindness is. 43:33 to 47:03 - Remarkable differences between elites (e.g., Ivy Leagues and legacy media) and non-elites.
Hmmm, I saw no remedies being proposed except "companies should be less racist". Well, erm, yeah, I could have told you that. That's no different at all from what the social justice warriors say. They just don't think that a podcaster wishing it is going to make much of a difference.
@@weaq84 _Hmmm. I saw no remedies being proposed except "companies should be less racist"._ One remedy Coleman proposed is to remove the names from the resumés when evaluating them to help avoid the type of racial bias he talked about in 11:52 to 13:48 (which is also the time stamp region he talked about his proposed remedies). Coleman didn't just say "companies should be less racist" he proposed more specific policies for companies that would help accomplish that goal.
@@wadetisthammer3612 WHen I moved to the US I was surprised by resumes not having pictures. Now I think it's a great idea and encripting names for the first filter seems natural.
@20:49 Eh...what?...yeah, they actually did. Because integration didn't just mean multiple colours of people played the sport it. It fundamentally changed the game. Just look at what the average height use to be for players. Good lord, I know this seems a silly point but integration actually really did change how the game was played. The fact that he fumbles this basic of a thing brings in to doubt any other insight he might offer. :(
Twitter under Musk has more free speech. The inevitable outcome of free speech is an increase in bad speech. Alex's question of is it a good trade-off isn't a Twitter question. It's a free-speech question. The question was never, do we have a better fairer way to police the speech so that its not shutting down reasonably mainstream ideas that shouldn't be censored. But rather, should we be policing the speech at all.
Alex, you asked if there has been imperical research on racial bias in children. I studied developmental psychology at university and read through a few of these studies. I can say that they pretty much confirm what Coleman stated, that children are born with no inherent racial bias unless they had been previously subjected to/taught racial discrimination by an authority figure. Humans are born without racial bias. Point blank.
It's a shame that they dismissed government intervention so quickly. Like Alex said at the end of that topic - it doesn't have to be an all or nothing approach. Mandating that companies (maybe of a certain size and within certain industries) use some service that anonymizes incoming resumes seems totally feasible. It's likely cheap and can be audited easily. (And some companies ARE doing that already.)
Just answering the title question here, that is like asking should we take LGBT issues out of politics. I would love it if no one cared about hurting LGBT people and would just let us live our lives in peace, but unfortunately that's not the world we live in, so we must have LGBT issues in politics. Well, I don't see how race is any different. In an ideal world we would all be treated like human beings with dignity, but that is not the world we live in. So if someone said we should take LGBT issues out of politics, it would make think either one of two things, about them, either they are naive and think that there is no political discrimination of LGBT people, or they know that there is but want to remove one of our tools for fighting back and actually was an enemy to LGBT people. So it makes me wonder, is our speaker naive or an enemy.
@@alibabaschultz352 Depends on what you mean. Do you mean something that is not explicitly racist but made with racist goals in mind? In that case there have been several gerrymandered election maps in some US states like North Carolina that have found to have been intentionally made to be discriminatory against black people. I seriously doubt that this issue is solved and there are probably other gerrymandered racist election districts. That's just one thing off the top of my head. Can you be more specific in what you are looking for?
37:18 a good follow up question would have simply been "where does the impulse to treat people differently according to their skin color come from?". I mean, do we discriminate against people who are tall or small? Do we discriminate against people with big hands or small hands? There are many physical differences that never show up as negative reasons to discriminate against someone with a level of consistency like racial features. You don't get rejected for a job or renting a house because your hands are too small or too big... How come this happens with skin color? Another question:"concretely, how do different treatments based on skin color manifest themselves in society when you are white and non white?" I can't believe that none of those questions came to the mind of someone who has shown more critical thinking. My only explanation is that Alex is not particularly literate on those topics, so why even talk about that in the first place?
Coleman speaks with so much moral and logical clarity on this issue. Race isnt determitive of anything in American culture today. To believe it is and to promote this idea, only hinders the potential that all people intrinsically have.
@@KYSMO Well, since the video is an hour, and my comment was made 38 minutes ago, I did not watch the entire video. But I listen to both these people relatively often so I'm aware of their positions. Let me know what i said that you take issue with.
Yeah race doesn’t determine anything and neither does ethnicity, religion, sex, disability, class, wealth, or education.. oh wait! Race is kinda a staple of American history. You’re telling me slavery, black codes,Jim Crow, and segregation were of no consequence? If so please explain the disparities. We ain’t solving any issue or seeing any optimal potential by lying to ourselves
@@kanggeorge4781 Never said any of that. I said, race isn't determitive of anything in American Culture TODAY. Of course there is a history in America, and a history all across the world that focused heavily on race. But today, in America, everyone has opportunity to overcome historical injustices that every human on the planet was subjected to.
@@nb4411The guy you are praising in your comment referenced a meta analysis in this very video that showed significant racial discrimination TODAY. That's why people are questioning your listening comprehension
I'm about 13min in but I'm already starting to realize that whether I agree with him really comes down to what he means by words like harm, discrimination and phrases like "bleeding out". I need to know the nature and scope of these words in the context with which he speaks. For instance a meta-analysis of call backs is a very thin slice of data and I'm not entirely sure his language is always bounded by that scope when talking about harm and discrimination in that context.
Business owners care about profits and more often than not will hire whoever will best help them achieve more profits. The incentive to hire the best person is baked into the cake. If a racist business owner doesn’t hire qualified applicants because of their skin tone then the business owner bears the cost of his racism by missing out on the gains he would’ve received had he hired the right person.
I see the allure of Hughes' position, but I still think it goes too far in the other direction and minimizes the issues that arise from material conditions in America, at least. It's great to say we shouldn't evaluate people in purely racial terms, but the reality is that when we _do,_ the effects of structural racism are obvious.
If by structural racism you mean the disproportionate rates of poverty, fatherlessness, non-college parents, etc. resulting from the legacy of racial policy then Coleman's point is that all of these factors are race-irrelevant and we should be addressing them without focusing on race. If race is not a privileged category then we have no reason to care that one race has a higher concentration of bad outcomes. It is not obvious that a black child suffering unjust disadvantages is worse than a white child suffering the same disadvantages because of the historical conditions leading to this outcome or their disproportionate representation.
As an example: if I told you that people born in October were 50% more likely to have parents in the bottom quintile of earners, you may be surprised but you wouldn't start giving everyone born in October an edge in college admissions. Because the October birthday isn't the hindrance.
@@notcesr7136 If I might tweak your analogy: In your hypothetical world, there has been a popular misconception that people born in October are somehow less human than everyone else. Indeed, this position has been advanced by the civil government, in part or in whole, for centuries. People with October birthdays suffer discrimination in almost every facet of their lives. Police are more likely to arrest or harm them. Judges are more likely to give them comparatively harsh treatment. Many laws are tuned, deliberately or not, to harm them. Doctors are less likely to help them. People are less likely to hire them. And on and on. Yeah, I can see wanting to help them out now.
@@shassett79but what about other people that have different disadvantages? Economic, socio-cultural or whatever. You re implying that being born in October is the ultimate disadvantage. What about some orphan child or somebody whose parent abused them? Are they not going to get the help given to people born in October that had the advantage of having both loving parents? Now You giving a unfair advantage to some people born in October. Situations need to be assesed case by case. And altough, what you re saying is generally true, It s not true in the absolute, there are plenty of exeptions, therefore cannot be dealt with collective mesures that work in the absolute.
@@nicolagaballo3120 "but what about other people that have different disadvantages?" We can do more than one thing at a time, you know... "You re implying that being born in October is the ultimate disadvantage." No, I'm not implying that. I'm just acknowledging material realities that make some people uncomfortable. "Situations need to be assesed case by case" In that case I guess you should propose a form of government in which all civil laws and policies are tailored to the idiosyncrasies of every individual. Good luck!
21:51 Where I think this goes off the rails NOW though, is no company can GET RID of "obvious Non-Performers" any more if they belong to a protected class without an expensive legal nightmare.
One thing I will disagree with is race never being relevant to policy decisions. One thing to remember is there are definitive differences between races. For example Australian Aboriginals are significantly more likely to have dangerous negative health effects than non-Aboriginal Australians from Covid, so the Aus government supplied extra RATS free tests for Aboriginal people to encorage them to test more often because of the extra risks.
You should reply to any of the hundreds of rational arguments addressing specific claims instead *looks around* absolutely zero emotional appeals I saw on the way down to your comment. Just saying “people are appealing to emotion” is nonsense when just about every comment is a rational arguments.
I have to agree with @gamechairphilosopher960’s comment, and I’m even an admirer of Coleman’s. Very few of this video’s comments disagreeing with Coleman are emotional/illogical. Seriously, there’s not a whole lot of them. Just scroll and see for yourself. In light of this, your comment comes across as a lazy dismissal one might resort to out of frustration, which ironically qualifies it as one of the few emotion-driven comments it was ostensibly intended to criticize.
@@gamechairphilosopher950 I don't know what to say other than this is not the case. There are a lot of people expressing disappointment in Alex for either having Coleman as a guest or not pushing back against his arguments.
@@markleavitt3297 one can express disappointment for Alex not pushing back on some dubious statements by Coleman and that not be appealing to emotion. I said as much in my own reply to the video.
I think the point about people seeing through the lens of what they are obsessed with is super important. I would add I think it's myriad, and can have a lot to do with what we do for money (as that often takes most of our day up). Regardless of whether it is work or just your hobby, your obsession can very easily cause you to miss a lot of alternative perspectives. I wish we lived in a society that promoted constant universal education rather than intense specialization or that we had much better sort of liminal bridges between specializations to have a better global understanding of human behavior, desires and needs. I do think that CRT has a role in society but people who have specialized in it don't necessarily have good bridges. People like me who didn't really get the most out of their CRT education but have empathy for suffering and have instead come from a lot of different perspectives as a student of life are often shunned from the political left. As an optimist though I want to say that there are good and bad values coming out of what some people call "woke ideology" and that although some people have become obsessed I don't think race is quite as much of a non issue as the interview might have made it seem. We have data showing not just disproportionate hiring practices but discrimination across the board from high to low stakes and while I agree many of these issues can also be characterized as a class issue there is all real practical value in pointing to the racial component as it illustrates how the social mechanism operates. We do divide people up into groups and were it not race it would be eye color or something else. It doesn't essentially matter what race someone is but what does matter is that the state can use those differences as a controlling mechanism. Disproportionate incarceration rates effectively eliminate a large percentage of black votes in the United States where a felony revokes your right to vote. Having a base of oppressed people allows you to constantly pit your own unruly oppressed constituents against them. I could go on. The point is this, I think there is very good cause to point out race politics and practical value in talking about then openly. I sometimes see these color blind more moderate approaches as another arm of state control, conscious or not. All that said the goal should be color blindness in the very end. To me I just don't see how we get there by simply "trying our best not to be racist" whilst the state has a vested interest in maintaining racial tensions. The mechanism is fed by tension, there must always be an enemy. There's a good lecture series by Michele Foucault that kinda gets into the history of statehood that's worth a read.
Coleman never said racism completely stopped - he just said we were headed towards a much better place(in terms of the way we saw and talked about race. You try and fight racism with more racism and racism will only get worse. Common sense really
@brianmeen2158 No we haven't.Itsthe same bs with South Africa ,people have been given a superficial idea of progress, just because you saw Obama that didn't mean shit.
58:00 worth mentioning that when rating community notes, a pool of contributors is brought together to assess notes that intentionally includes other contributors with whom you've voted in opposition before. This means that notes must have some degree of concordance in a pool selected for a certain level of disagreement. It seems to have worked out very well in practice and it's kind of brilliant.
For all the comments against police. Sure racism exits and some cops are not doing their job well. However I assure from a Ground level there is a lot of good. I’m a white intercity er doctor going on forty years. The police are always bringing people to the Ed. Even in the old days I did not witness overt racism or unprofessional behavior. Just the opposite. They were first responders breaking up and preventing family fights, dealing with homelessness and alcohol/drug problems. They clearly were first responders breaking up fights, preventing family violence, and responding to a variety of medical problems. In one case the medics were called by police to a young man found in the brushes. The medics told the police he was ok but police thought something was wrong. He ended up having a traumatic intracranial bleed. In 40 years I saw no police brutality or racial attitudes. All I saw was them helping. Most black intercity moms want more police not less. Come work with me and see the help they provide to alcoholism, drug addiction and family violence.
It’s relevant when you’re talking about crime statistics, making immigration policy, picking a neighborhood to live in, when you’re picking a school for your kids to go to. Pretending it isn’t leads to disaster.
I lived in a predominantly black neighborhood in the American Midwest from the ages of 4-17. These eggheads need to go on a ghetto safari and get a dose of reality. I would NEVER subject my children to what I went through. I live in a state with very high taxes compared to the national average, and it does nothing but make the problems worse. There are no readily available solutions to racial disparities in outcomes unless we can somehow change the behavior of millions of people. It's never going to happen. The problems will grow, and the taxes will rise until anything resembling our modern lifestyle is little more than a faint memory. I am saving money and moving to the whitest area I can as soon as possible. I suggest every capable person, regardless of race, does the same.
Bro lost me at 43:33 when he said, "The effect you're seeing is the difference between elites and non-elites, mainly." There were several dogwhistles in his rhetoric throughout, but that was the breaking point for me. How can you possibly defend that assumption? It's a classic right-wing talking point to refer to the "liberal elites" as a general dismissal of opposition. Completely undermined his credibility in my eyes. Then he goes on to say how his opinions are controversial in universities, especially "elite" universities like the Ivy League, but "everywhere else" that's "non-elite" his opinions are "common sense." What he's actually saying is that he gets disregarded by listeners that are educated on the history of systemic oppression, while those who don't have that necessary context just take his words at face value. Many "common sense" arguments sound compelling and downright intuitive until you actually pay attention and learn the complexities of the situation. I'm very disappointed.
That's because that history does not matter. If we keep dwelling on it we will never move forward. What happened over 50. .hell even over 10 years ago no longer matter. It's about the future and how we go forward.
Firstly, are you claiming that left wing ideology is the rational conclusion these people came to because of their high education? The issues with that are clear. Secondly, being educated on how people became disadvantaged in the current day and age due to historic oppression doesn't mean we need to agree on the solution. Left leaning people seem to think we should give black people money to help them, regardless of whether specific individuals need it or not, instead of giving people in need money, regardless of their race. The same thing applies to affirmative action in colleges. Should we help black people, regardless of whether specific people need it, or should we help people who need help, regardless of race? To me, it doesn't seem obvious more history lessons on systemic oppression would change my answer.
You made it that far? This guest lost me when he said sports (a highly genetic selective competition) was a meritocracy in work simply. ;) Have a blessed day.
@@Toanleighyou missed the point. The point is that nobody gets advanced in sports unless they are actually the best athlete - that’s what a meritocracy means. They are advanced based on merit - not some other characteristic such as race or ethnicity
Race was clearly RELEVANT from the birth and development of this nation .🕵🏾 Without race being important this nation would not be the same Mr Hughes ✌🏾
As far as science is concerned there are no races.. just the human race. So maybe just stop using the word Alex. The human race is one, we don't subdivide. Humans can be split into ethnicities and nationalities but not races.
You’re right race is a social construction and sociologically, not biologically, here in America it maps onto a weird blend of ethnicity and skin tone. But the word still has a use in the sociological application. Also the notion of a human race isn’t even biological concept. We’re the homo sapien species. The use of the word “human race” is like “kinds” from a creationist, another social construction with a different connotation.
@@justsomedude77 Yes. Any belief system however accurate or inaccurate is better understood than ignored, if only for the fact that there are people who believe in them and act if they are completely accurate.
Well yah but that wasn't the case in the past and the past have consequences in our reality , so yes we are humans! but practically we didn't reach this level yet, and we can't move on without solving the problems of our history that affect ppl today
@20:00 That is a great topic, It's easy to find articles from 2013 highlighting the merits of blind auditions and yet since 2020 apparently ethnicity should be considered (according to some journals) when selecting members of an orchestra. I'm exhausted by these stands. Hiring the best person is such an easy concept and at the same times solves most issues of bias.
Removing names from resumes has long been recommended by equity and diversity experts but the people who refuse to remove names are the same people who accuse equity and diversity groups of being guilty of "reverse racism."
That whole argument was insane They keep bringing up ethnic restaurants as examples of how government mandates on "colorblindness" would be disastrous as if current discrimination laws didn't already account for those kinds of businesses just fine.
How about, instead of blindly attacking what you perceive to be the "bad side", you just make your point, and try to attract intelligent people to discuss.
Actually it's the very same people who initially pushed for it who are rejecting it now. There were studies done on the topic after the idea was proposed, and every time such policies were tried, they resulted in more white men being hired. And because the stated goal of these policies is not fair hiring practices, but to "increase diversity", it was reverted by those very same people. The "people who accuse equity and diversity groups" don't have the institutional power in the current state of the game to make any changes either way. And this is by the way also the reason why the very same people were trying to repeal the civil rights law of California a few years back, which was put up to a referendum and luckily rejected by the electorate. Because it prevents the "equity and diversity groups" from being as openly discriminatory as they would like to be.
I’m not sure what that means. Anyway, I was just clarifying the original comment because you seemed confused. Whether the OP is right is beyond the scope of my comment.
14:46 And who, EXACTLY, is going to do this. And whom is going to bear this cost. And let's not forget the inevitable lawsuits in perpetuity. For ONE POSITION.
Coleman is an idealistic young man who has lived a largely sheltered, and privileged, life. Not to say that he hasn't had struggles but the tuition of the day school he attended has an annual tuition greater than the median income, for an individual, in the US. I certainly hope that one day a world that conforms to his vision becomes our reality, one day, but until then I feel he allows that idealistic vision to cloud his perception of the day to day life of the marginalized in the United States. I don't think there is any malice in this, I just think he is a someone who wishes we were a lot closer to the world he envisions, and so mistaken puts us further down that path.
Even if he has lived a sheltered life, you stating it has got nothing to do with argument. Maybe you should contend with his actual points and not commit your origin/genetic fallacy.
In fact it's quite the opposite in my experience. It is precisely the white, educated and rich who are the biggest adherents and advocated of race reductionism in politics.
All his research is completely independent of his lived experience. For example, on affirmative action. Indeed, I believe his ideas are the actual reality. The only way to eliminate racism is to not have policies that involve race.
I was really unsure about what he was saying, but I enjoyed hearing him walk through it calmly, up until he mentioned meritocracy... Meritocracy is a myth.
@danw5760 lol did you have any arguments or do you just believe in every ideal the rich present you with? Meritocracy is literally a myth. People don't get what they deserve based on intelligence or productivity. They get what they are lucky enough to get from people who like them enough and aren't too bigoted to exclude them. People get an appartment because the landlord thinks they deserve it, not because they literally worked for it. Money sometimes acts as a great equalizer, until you realize the people making money are also not selected based on merit but based on simply being born to rich parents, having sucked up to a rich benefactor, having had enough to make your own investments, being lucky enough to have a decent job, and so on. Look, you clearly have nothing useful to say, you only replied because you believe deeply that you deserve good and others deserve bad, just like all the people who bought into competitiveness and social structures which do not exist at all. Someone disagreeing with you is an opportunity to look deeper, not to reply some strawman bullshit. You can do better. I looked deeper before realizing it was a myth. Did you? Or are you just having a knee-jerk "I must defend my fake cultural standard" moment?
@@Nathouuuutheone you didn't present any argument yourself originally did you? Double standards already appearing. The arguments you later presented are totally unconvincing and laced with unfounded personal attacks. It is of course the case that aspects of success are attributable to factors that people have no control over, such as family, wealth, looks, height. But your suggestion that the individual can play no role in their fate is very extreme. Let's take a very basic thing, timekeeping, anyone of average IQ can turn up on time, clearly they are more likely to succeed than someone who doesn't. Have we not clearly identified at least one area where success is under the control of the individual?
@danw5760 so I make a short reply to a video and I'm supposed to detail my arguments like a pro, but someone replying directly to ME shouldn't put any effort into it? And I'M the one with a double standard? Also, you double up on your strawman. "The individual can play no role in their fate" is such an idiotic misrepresentation of what I said. Move the fuck on, I am not wasting more time on your nonsense. You came here to pick a fight without any respect or rigor. It's shameful. Grow up.
This is a common misconception people have about the term. "Meritocracy" means selecting the best person for the thing. EG, if you are trying to hire people for a moving company, having a test to see which one of them can lift the most makes it a meritocratic process. It does not mean that individuals are rewarded fairly for their abilities, or that people have equal access to things that will make them better, or anything else you said in the second comment. (Not that those things don't matter, they just aren't part of meritocratic systems).
Easily enough answered, as put .. if a little controversial. 1) For the Enlightenment Philosophy of 'man', 2) In the evolutionary theories of science-based eugenics, 3) With the politically corrected expressions of a political activist victimology. The end, like the origin, and its sustenance, is of materialist equation value-theory. A quantum (how much) component of some Marxian elements of Darwinian progress, i.e. in commerce, rather than a quantum (how many) expression of Mathusian use of Lamarcian effort, e.g. via economy. Its antithesis is the qualis - qualitas = quality of 'being' .. nature, condition, property, state (and the virtue or vice thereof, which interests no one very much today, as it is too spiritual or rather metaphysical). If 'man' is taken as a quantifiably different kind of ape, then the sums add up to make advanced tool-making is higher (in evolutionary progress) than regressive hide-chewing or nest-building, etc. And if this quantifiable difference is noted between human races - Anglo-Saxons and Celts, Greeks and Barbarians, Sapiens and Neanderthalis ('us' and 'them') - then the less advanced (or advanceable) race will be at an evolutionary disadvantage .. and the advanced advantage-holders will have only minimal evolutionary need to preserve the less advantaged (be they Noble Savage or dirt poor labourer in quality of life, they are an excess population). Today's Race Theory, being ostensibly about (imposing) equivalent equity in the summation of useful population against excess population, quantitatively, must therefore turn both the Malthusian (effort-improvement) and Marxian (State-controlled) progressive ideologies on their heads .. without altering the activist endeavour or the capitalisation of interest (in order to achieve virtue-signalling 'equality' measured in 'quantifiable' terms, within the realm of ever-changing goal posts as a 'norm'). Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o) 'The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.' Chesterton, Orthodoxy.
Coleman's book is excellent. HIGHLY recommended for those who want to reflect on this issue more deeply. THANK YOU, Alex and Coleman, for a very illuminating and memorable discussion!
As issues about race became more prominent in discourse, that discourse more deranged, and my awareness of it all increased, I have observed an incredible change in my feelings towards the color of everyone’s skin. Here’s the experience I had before: I think it’s true to say I am a very cognitive or cerebral person and was from a young age. I distinctly remember the attitude towards race I developed in my first years of primary school. It is very much of a piece with the color-blindness Colman advocates. I could see different skin, of course. And I knew it mattered to some people. That therefore, people of various colors would probabilistically be more subjected to language/feelings about the color of their skin. And yet, it made total sense to me that I was really and truly in the presence of another human being, ultimately. That there was no reason at all to doubt that the principled possibilities of character and competence available to any one person were also available to any other. Now, I may still have harbored some amount of unconscious bias…but this attitude combined with another attitude towards my own beliefs really seemed to safeguard me from racism (to a degree that Colman suggests is possible). I had seen that unconscious bias was possible and that the best I might be able to hope for was to treat people in a reasoned and principled way, not a reactive one. The second attitude regarding beliefs was simply that any uncertainty at all I had (or rather anything shy of absolute certainty borne of logical soundness “all the way down”) had to be acknowledged by myself inwardly. In other words, no beliefs came for free. I could think things might be true, but I simply could not allow myself to believe I knew things to be true (unless the view was truly unassailable, with the biggest “no matter what” conceivable). My experience changed: In recent years though, I began to feel myself react in a new way to the colors of people’s skin (even and especially people of my own “race,” white people). At first, I had no real idea as to what was happening in myself. Perhaps a little over a year ago, a possible explanation occurred to me that resonated deeply (though may still be at least somewhat inaccurate or incomplete): I felt that my skin color mattered to others…and that they would assume theirs mattered to me… Painfully ironically, in some strange and backwards way, theirs DID ”matter” to me, but only because: (1) I viscerally anticipated mine to matter to them in some way associated with theirs and (2) I perceived that the other person would likely take for granted that theirs mattered to me, perhaps especially because of my skin color. Furthermore, I knew they might feel the same way I did…a problem imagined would play out as though real. All because of unhelpful discourse on the topic. I could not help but feel, I still cannot help but feel, that my attitude before was better for me and for others. And perhaps unsurprisingly, we all seem worse off overall for the obsession so many have with race.
2:39 Spreads is the correct term because it is exactly like contagion. Back in the day, papers were distributed. And ALL news departments, print radioand TV subscribed to "wire services". Literally, wires. Telephone wires that replaced the tele-GRAPH wires they qould share with telegrams. Not a pro, but I guess you could get more detail. But if that story in Topeka found something out later, say after the investigation into the shooting, and something iffy was found, they would write another story and if Editor that it was worth expense, might submit it up to whichever service they subscribed. If they had several, they probably had some time thing where one service paid to be first or something. This is how the FAX (facsimile) machine came to be, BTW. Was how they passed photos along the wire. And was outrageous to do. COLOR even more so, to send or transmit. Then it would show up in NJ and really worldwide. If they considered story worth their time it go out. Then EVERYONE could debate the WHOLE STORY. Or it was SUPPOSED to be. But OWNERS of media CONTROLLED whatever they owned. Including wire services. Where saying BURY the story comes from. If they thought it needed hearing, maybe, it would get buried on the classifieds section when they had a blank spot to fill.
My takeaways from Coleman’s thoughts on racism: 1. Racism is overstated 2. The most worrying forms of racism are now coming from the left. 3. It’s better to just persuade people not to be racist than apply any legislation. 4. Why can’t we just all get along? I didn’t learn a thing from this guy. He spouts a series of platitudes about how race should be unimportant to how we treat others, but offers no ideas about how we actually achieve this. His main problem is with people who are too vocal about discrimination in areas he believes are overstated. I laughed when he said white supremacy is not a major risk, and the US is 6 months away from likely electing one as president.
This is why instead of post-Marxism, I like pre-Marxism, aka - good ole Hegelian synergy. Marx understood economics but Hegel sought to understand people.
He’s arguing against a straw man. CRT and ‘wokeness’ are not calling for judging people by race. They’re calling for noticing trends in outcomes and for acknowledging the very recent past that has repercussions in present day.
You can judge people individually and judge groups as groups. There isn't a conflict there. The problem is when people's judgements about groups supersede their judgements about individuals, rather than the other way around.
@@256shadesofgrey nope. What happens is that people with a genuine interest in understanding the remaining effects of widespread overt oppression in recent history will teach the truth about it. This in turn makes some white people feel like they’re being directly attacked rather than simply being educated on reality. They then argue that they’re being directly labelled as oppressors when that isn’t actually the argument of these critiques. The actual argument is that there are still subtle remnants of historical racism in the way society is organised that are often not directly remedied by things like legislation and other rules. It involves trying to understand the ways on which we are all subtly biased. And some people *really* don’t like to even entertain the idea that they’re not perfectly objective individuals. Those people, ironically, misrepresent things like CRT both in purpose and in impact, pretending that little white children in kindergarten are being actively taught to hate themselves.
@@ChrisFineganTunes This isn't accurate. California recently tried to repeal a law requiring race-neutrality in certain hiring practices so that they could hire based on race to correct for alleged racism. Also, he was almost banned from giving a talk at TED on this topic because an employee organization said that colorblindness promotes white supremacy. Be aware of "reverse nutpicking" whenever you're trying to say a certain group is "just" trying to do this-reasonable-thing. Odds are your projecting your own political opinions into something and haven't seen the evidence that the other person is arguing against.
I strongly disagree with Hughes' assessment of the responses to his work, and of Alex's framing of the question. The actual answer is that the left has purposefully socially isolated themselves with concepts like deplatforming. Even listening to disagreeable opinions is a social faux pas. There are almost all positive comments on his work because those that disagree will never engage with him at all. His concept of "elites" doesn't hold water at all in my opinion, as there is very obviously a huge base of normal people who also think this way. Even his example of the term latinx doesn't quite work. Users of that term are in a bubble, but not the one Hughes describes. Using x/@/e is a phenomena in latin american countries called lenguaje inclusivo that has to do with the LGBT movements in those countries. The use of latinx, while done in a naive way, is an attempted bridge to a multinational LGBT movement, which also does have real grassroots support (if somewhat fringe). This is important because the point of the term is not to reach or connect with "hispanic" voters at all, but specifically with LGBT spanish speakers. This might still be disagreeable to some, but the bubble is not with 'elites', it's a large movement.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nnsure, but what I have experienced is that people working together, by no choice of their own, get to know each other and realize how alike we are. In the 70s, I knew a white kid who got a full scholarship to Johnson and Wales college, but when he arrived for orientation and saw black people for the first time, he refused to go. If he had been working with them earlier in life, he may not have forfeited his opportunity. I realize this is an extreme example, but it happened. Today, I don't know if that would happen.
"If your white great-great grandfather KILLED my great-great grandfather And your white great grandfather SOLD my great grandfather And your white grandfather R***D my grandmother And your father stole, cheated, lied and ROBBED my father What kind of fool would I have to be to say “Come, my friend!” " - Sista Souljah
I'll be honest, having an opinion on how "one sided" the censorship was on Twitter before Elon and having no opinion on whether or not the platform has gotten overwhelmingly worse since he took over is kind of suspicious, or at the very least a cop out. As alex said, the twittersphere has become a deranged barrage of porn, fight vids, and other types of hyper click baity media. Quite obviously worse for anyone not really seeking out such content.
It would say twitter after Elon is much better. It´s great that it has evolved from being a one-side echochamber spewing misinformation to a cesspool spewing misinformation (and now also all other kinds of vile things)in all directions. Now the ratio of people taking it seriously has decreased dramatically, which is a net positive.
Definitely more financially beneficial to be a black contrarian and you stand out more. His analogies break down to nothingness when taken apart. They only sound good on the surface period.
He doesn't seem to consider the possibility that these racist institutions won't buy into his racially diverse policies precisely because they're racist. They don't see the problem with being racist because that keeps them on top, making the most money, and in a place of security. The system isn't broken for them, so why would they want to 'fix' it?
Quite the opposite, he qualifies all of his views. The fact that he does not feel obliged to adopt a given set of views by virtue of his race shows he is capable of free thought and it raises him above conditioned masses.
From what I'm hearing about his views is that we wouldn't live in a racist world of people just stopped being racist. Which doesn't seem to engage with the echoes and scars that racists have placed upon our societal institutions. He dismissed the people who have spent significant portions of their career studying whilst simultaneously justifying his conclusions by the degree of agreement he gets from laypeople who haven't studied history or anthropology as if bandwagon theory carries more weight than in depth study. He carries himself well and puts on a great display of erudidity, but doesn't seem to grasp the consequences derived from people in power who care more for their personal prestige than the welfare of their fellow humans.@@pizzaboy4463
CRT obviates the need for any thought, word or act of racism as proof of their presumed verdict. All they need is their preferred race measuring less favorably than another. Regardless of the cause: they declare their favored race to be victims of the other. Then they would use real government enforced discrimination in response to their presumed discrimination; altering laws, policies and practices to favor their preferred race. All for the stated purpose of forcibly making the measurements between races identical. The operative question is whether you support using government force to implement racial discrimination. All the rest is academic. My answer is no.
It is crazy to hear a black say, if it fails, it fails. Are you not aware of how bad things were? The equivalent of saying, "well we tried to peacefully negotiate with the British, i guess we'll just be colonists". Private companies are notoriously selfish, the people who create them want personal gain. The take is not rooted in reality
Communist is still a much dirtier term than woke, and identifying class categories is considered, at least in America, an entirely communist trope that exists wholly in defiance of the meritocratic values of the people. As far as I'm aware, people have tried making class distinctions since the rise of modernism in the 20th century, but it only got about as far as the distinction between blue collar and white collar which to the American populace still reduces down to an explicit choice one makes upon becoming an adult. No other relevant socioeconomic factors are inserted into their conception and the decision is made entirely within the narrative framework of free will. I think determinism is probably an even dirtier word than communist. Jordan Peterson just interviewed Robert Sapolsky, famous for his research on neurobiology and behaviorism, while on a book tour for his new release titled "determined," and not once did they ever even speak about the conclusions of his research or engage in any dialogue involving the context of free will vs determinism. They didn't even say the word determinism throughout the entirety of their interview. Peterson knows his audience, and his audience is about as intellectually honest as it gets on the political American right. No doubt, he elected to prohibit that conversation from taking place on the grounds that his audience isn't capable of productively engaging with that discussion. If that doesn't tell you anything about the state of nuance, language, and honesty in our discussions here, then idk what else to say.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn True. I was shocked to hear even within workplaces how you have to treat your boss like they're a king and be all "Mr, soandso" instead of treating them like any other coworker that just have managing tasks (from Sweden btw)
Idk how he can claim that a journalist looking into a police shooting as presenting "More or less the facts of the story." That is simply untrue. In many cases they side with the cops or just repeat the police line even when that may not be true. Bodycam and recorders let us see what is happening. I mean what context makes kneeling on a mans neck for minutes appropriate anyway?
To be clear, in the case certain people are not aware of it, they are talking about UK and US society mainly, of which they only briefly mentioned doing that. In the Netherlands where I live, we have a very different situation. In this video, they also talk about universal things that thus apply to every country on the world, or at least most countries. I wanted to make these distinctions as an important nuance.
Btw, especially 27:25 - 27:57 minutes is an example that wouldn't apply to the Netherlands, a largely secular society where people lead a happy and meaningful life in general full of guidance. This video is, and I would say many of Alex's videos and those of other podcasters, is clearly from an American or British perspective.
Have you ever reached out to David Bentley-Hart or someone similar to come on the show? I wish you would interact with serious theologians/Christian philosophers. I'm sick of Lane Craig being put up as the guy to defend the theist side. It's embarrassing
Here's a question: why are we focusing so miopically on the issue of name discrimination in resumes when talking about the broad topic of the utility of racial politics? The irony is that this study doesn't even definitevly prove racism. The real test would be to show photographs of two people of two races with the same names. And see if the foreign name impacts the white applicant as much as another. I don't know of anyone that's hiring people with resumes that have photos 😅 Except maybe in Hollywood. Perhaps this study has been done. I'd be interested to know. Another thing: Coleman's point about a foreigner's small business only hiring one race is crucial because it points out the fundamental hypocrisy many people engage in. Its only white dominated careers or industries that are ever criticized for this (that and Jewish dominated industries by another unsavory group). I see many people from Asia dominating the tech field and medicine in the United States. If they do too well, are we going to have to limit how many of them can be hired because it needs to be more fair? I think the best way forward is to not imagine a fantasy scenario where a benign government can regulate racism out of culture and the workplace and instead we should apply ourselves to live by the "colorblind" ethic of treating everyone with the respect and dignity they deserve with no regard to their racial category. The more we teach our children to see people as more than their surface level traits, the less racism there will be and the less discrimination everyone will have to face. It will never be gotten rid of. Like lying, stealing, arrogance, and foolishness will never be gotten rid of. Racism is a vice. It will emerge and submerge in all cultures in many different directions across time. I think arguing for the government to try and legislate racism out of corporations is foolish. Because I don't agree that they will make the problem better. It'll just invent new problems. "No whites" hiring practices have sprung up from these organizations that were designed to end racial discrimination... Explain that contradiction. Harvard accepted fewer Asian students than merit would have compelled because of racially preferential enrollment practices. Even with all that, if I play along and take the study to be as meaningful as Alex seems to think it is, and that it proves what he thinks it does (which is not certain at all), I still think this practice is a bad idea and will inevitably go wrong. Coleman briefly brought up the NBA. Let's take the Rap industry. It's predominantly black americans dominating that industry. The study would suggest that those men and women would have racially biased hiring practices... We see a disparity between the amount of black vs. white people we see in that field. Should those companies be forced to hire more Asian and white people? There are people who would want to do that. But it would in all likelihood not be applied this way ever because these racial policies tend to only ever be considered for people who progressives declare as "disadvantaged" in their meta politcal narrative. Also, nobody likes a diversity hire 😅 to be one or to work with one. The worker would feel insecure in all likelihood and the coworkers would feel like the position wasn't properly earned. That's why blind hiring is a much better practice than forced quotas and check lists of necessary racial categories. I don't think Coleman articulated himself very well in this conversation but I agree with his central point. I think Alex's miopic focus on this "name study" is a fairly flimsy foundation for the argument that we need our politics to be as obsessed with race as they are. And thats to say nothing of the elephant in the room of the normalization of anti-white hatred, and the rise of far right reactionaries lashing back with some racist rhetoric. I think racializing politics is bad simply because it's the racists (on all sides) who get excited by that and want to see the government fix whatever their "race" problem is. Love you Alex, but I do wish you'd try to see things a bit more from the POV of some of your less progressive guests with the same charity and curiosity that you treat your theist guests. I may be the only one who gets this impression, but then again a may be one of the few of your regular viewers who is proudly not a progressive. I don't feel as though you truly have understood and repudiated political arguments, so much as you've rhetorically challenged them. Quite cleverly, but I don't think it's very substantive.
Good interview Alex couple points I think would should’ve pushed back on but I don’t begrudge you for not knowing every detail of anti discrimination US law would be good if you got someone on the other side of the spectrum to Coleman perhaps a Nathan J Robinson or even a vaush
I wouldn't want Vaush in this space. Regardless of how anybody feels about him, I think his argumentation is just okay and there are less controversial and better qualified people to discuss these topics with. He's become such a relatively loaded figure in online spaces that it might do more harm than good to bring him on
@@stephenjohnson9745 I don't disagree a lot of people already head into any video with him with loaded biases that make any conversation with him no matter how uncontroversial what he says kinda fruitless why I was fairly apprehensive including him
I’d like to see the racial and political make up of those who support Coleman’s colorblind view. I’d bet money that it’s mostly white and/or black conservatives.
Nothing wrong with addressing the remaining legacies of the racist past, and acknowledging the race based bias (we pretend we do not have). But it’s another to blame everything on it and ignore all other issues. Like Israel Palestine situation…apparently it’s anti-semantic now to criticize Israel.
@@Nick-o-timeANC went violent and accepted aid from the USSR during the Cold War, so of course it would be labeled as a terrorist organization. Its aims were noble and the civilians they killed in the crossfire were probably not intentional, so do they deserve the title of terrorists? Probably not. But Hamas on the other hand, is a clear cut terrorist organization. They launched a terrorist attack on oct 7, murdering innocent men, women, children and babies, then kidnapped 200 people and shielded themselves in hospitals, homes and schools. Their stated goal is to eradicate Israel, and kill Jews / Israelis all over the world. That was their charter somewhere in the late 1980s, then they switched the word Jew to Zionist in their most recent 2017 charter but essentially their goals for eradication stayed the same. They were able to successfully launch a disinformation campaign that led to all these college kids and people like you to believe none of this happened or was justified. Israel has to respond to murders and kidnappings, and that’s what they did. There’s innocent collateral on both sides, but Hamas’ intentions are clear in their own words.
@@Nick-o-time Hamas are terrorists. Read their 2017 charter. ANC was labeled terrorists due to paranoia by the US since it was the middle of the Cold War and ANC went violent with their car bombings and what not and accepted aid from the USSR. Not justified but historical context matters
Try AG1 today: www.drinkAG1.com/withinreason
For early, ad-free access to videos, support the channel at www.Patreon.com/AlexOC
You're in the top league now 😂
Hey you, reader of this comment, do not click on the link Alex has posted because by your own moral system - it's possible you're undeserving to click there. Why? I don't know, it's your moral system not mine. You tell me if you think you deserve to click there. Ask yourself this, do you REALLY deserve this?
Im a big fan of how much you tend to challenge your guests in this podcast, especially in the more philosophy/religion oriented episodes, and have to say that I was pretty disappointed with this one.
Maybe it's because it's mostly focused on (American) government policy and statistics, but it felt like Coleman got to sneak In several sketchy arguments that you didn't really have the knowledge to push back on.
The most egregious is the Yemeni restaurant argument - Coleman should be perfectly aware that US discrimination laws already have exceptions for those kinds of businesses and that it's not a particularly hard distinction to make.
Hiring bias is another - pretending that the problem is solved if there are no names in the CV is preposterous and not at all the point of the studies. The bias will still be there if applicants get interviewed or hired.
@@Bids-Shadowbread No one deserves anything.
Big fan of ur show mate .keep rocking as usual .❤️❤️❤️💪💪💪
Agree or disagree with Hughes, he's a calmly passionate thinker who considers his positions carefully, is open to debate, and doesn't consider having an opposing opinion something that makes you a stupid or a bad person. The world needs more people like him, and more conversations like this! I wish it was twice as long.
True but also, how could you disagree with his argument in good faith
nobody cares about actual thoughts and policies. it's all just who is more charismatic
Let's see him debate Jared Taylor.
@@opensocietyenjoyer Speak for yourself.
@@realbangbang Here's mine, it's pretty minor in the scheme, but that's how the majority of leftist disagreement is. It's certainly not bad faith.
"Race certainly shouldn't be relevant, but the fact remains it is... In my family home, South Gate california, black families were being refused the sale of homes at least through the 60s. I can't claim superior knowledge about Jersey, but in California the American Sanctuary state, black families were systemically prevented from accruing any form of generational wealth, while my family's ability to do so was protected by law. That is an unfair advantage, in living memory. How do we not call this institutional racism? Even if we pretend it all ended 60 years ago, 60 years ago is fucking recently.... My grandma absolves herself by saying she didn't know, but not only did she benefit, but I did too.
Reparations matter. Especially in the US. Not cash reparations, but access to education, for example. Your guest is so weird. He's right about how class issues divide us all, but he's using it to try and hide other issues, that's pretty oof. Intersectionality will free us. It started as intersectional feminism, but their main point was that all these issues intersect and they were right. It's a gordian knot, and if we only tug at one string at a time, we run the risk of making the knot tighter and harder to undue.... It's good that we have him to tug on the strings of class, it's not one person's job to undue the whole knot, and that's why it's good actually that so many leftists are focused on so many different issues. It's unfortunate that he seems to think of the rest of us as misguided, though. Our infighting is the best."
Black families, by and large, have not even been allowed to accrue generational wealth until a generation that is still mostly alive today. Generational wealth is the majority of wealth in this country. We don't often recognize it because today boomers hold the vast majority of it. But this is more than a thumb on the scale, the law might be equal now today, but the playing field still just isn't, not by a long shot. That's why it matters, because we still have a chance to make it even, and we can't actually do that by being colorblind.
Kids being colour blind in the sense that they don't treat you any different based on race only applies if those kids are used to being in a multiethnic environment. If you're the only black kid in a school you will be treated differently. If you go to parts of rural china where they've never seen foreigners, the children will always be pointing at you and shouting "foreigner" because you're unusual to them. Another issue is how well integrated a multicultural society is, there are still in-group out-group dynamics that cause tension; different races form cliques in school, speak a different language etc.
I think the tests were done on preschoolers. Once education starts that’s when the relation ship with skin colour and perceived status begins.
I believe what he means is that children don’t understand stereotypes linked to certain groups, so a child in rural china or Nigeria would see a white person as strange but not have any information to judge them negatively or positively. Children typically don’t have a sense of danger that why they can play with strangers easily , now in the process of teaching children safety, Parents can teach bias but it takes a while for it to set in , probably junior high school and depends on the intensity. Some may argue teaching children about race may prevent this which I agree but 2 problems arise. Race and ethnicity are complex topics to teach and takes years to fully understand so how do you simplify it without teaching something wrong, also present methods of teaching focus more on racial injustice than understanding differences. This creates an even more detrimental effect on children than the biases their parents pass on directly or indirectly.
That's missing the point. He's saying children don't judge character based on race and don't see race as a barrier for friendship etc.
I had a great example of this when I visited a small Kenyan village for a few weeks with my daughter who was 6 at the time. Most of the kids there had literally never seen a white person IRL, only on tv, and being Swedish we are pretty much as white as it gets. So the children was all over her, curious about her blond straight hair, her skin, her strange language etc etc.
But not one of them assumed she was stupid, or smart, or wouldn't want to play with them, or wouldn't like their food and so on. There was endless fascination with her race, but none of it was racist. She had friends everywhere in no time at all, while I had to work much harder to get over the social barriers in the adult world.
The way I see it countries, that are foreign are still nice to visit, because they've got a respect of persons regardless of who these persons are. When you move somewhere culture, language, and norms all get in your way as you integrate. But as someone who lives in Miami brother is strong division by way of language, where you could easily see how people that speak exclusively English or Spanish divide themselves up, even if by preference, I don't see that as a problem. It's kind of like complaining that cats and dogs don't get along. They don't understand each other. I don't know what else we can do. Hopefully the cultures would adopt a feeling of respect for the misunderstood. But it's ridiculous to assume you just become friends with someone you can't talk to.
@@butterflyvision3084 Yes, that kind of curiosity can be wholesome. But it doesn't last forever.
Say that instead of just visiting for a few days your daughter enrolled in a Kenyan school as the only non-Kenyan there. Do you seriously think she wouldn't be in danger of being singled out, or have trouble integrating?
Racism as a belief system is indeed something that's taught, but it didn't come from nowhere. Tribalism and in-group preferences come naturally to people, even kids, and it can absolutely get ugly. If you work in early schools, especially very homogenous ones, you'll see kids with any sort of visible difference (accent, skin color, looks, neurodivergence) get pestered relentlessly. Some of them learn to deal with it or manage to integrate, but not all.
Suggestion from a fan: Alex please ask your editors to show on screen the graphs or text or images that are referenced by the guest. Kind of like how Joe Rogan has it. That adds further contextual depth to the conversation. Thanks!
He's not referencing anything but his own vibes
@@beanbrewer If Hughes could submit to the editor the sources he wishes to cite before the podcast, he wouldn’t have to cite “vibes”.
@@ayylmao2710 he doesn't have sources to cite is the point
@@beanbrewerstfu he’s written an entire book filled with sources
@@beanbrewer He literally did cite studies and statistics, mouthbreather
Blinding in hiring is great. We should do that as much as possible. But a huge piece of this conversation is missing. Where does the talent pool come from? And are people given equal (or at least good) access to the education and resources that would qualify them in the first place? We've made progress certainly. But oppotunity without education is meaningless. And which community you are born into still matters.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn “equality of opportunity”
You will never reach equality of opportunity in a nation as large as America. It is a pipe dream especially since the overall wage gap is only widening .. just examine various zip codes and you will see large disparities ..
redistribution of wealth seems like a very messy idea - when in history has that ever worked?
You can’t ever have fully equal opportunity. It would require communist like control over resources and schools. You can improve those that are doing bad, specifically if they are tax payer funded. It wont ever been fully equal though. The good thing is it doesn’t need to be.
I love these sorts of comments because if you've ever been in the kind of schools where these "undeserved" people are you quickly understand it's got nothing to do with anything but the kid themselves. Even people in education want to get out of these places as soon as possible because they know there's nothing to be done.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn I disagree, equality of outcome is not a fair or realistic solution because it has never existed. Culture plays a major role in opportunities people are interested in. If you break down demographics to their barest minimum, these disparities exist even within racial groups. The location where a group resides and their family heritage plays a major role in it. I believe the best solution is to expose people of all communities to take various opportunities and provide them with support for which ever they’re interested. Equal outcomes would not solve the supply problem or the family problem. And disparities does not always equate racism as for example, I won’t expect a majority of abortion providers or male gynecologist to be of Islamic heritage due to their cultural background. Trying to employ more won’t change the supply side
@@fun_gussyI went to predominantly black schools in poor neighborhoods as a white kid. You're literally just a racist.
On grading papers, in my degree it was just standard practice at my university that you put your 'student number' at the top, never your name.
I'd like it if you'd interview someone from the other side of this debate, as you've interviewed several anti-woke activists already. EDIT: I am not saying that Coleman Hughes is an anti-woke activist, but several people he has had on in the past definitely fit that bill.
I wouldn’t call Coleman “anti woke”. That’s very reductive
Like who?
People who still operate under woke/antiwoke dichotomy legit are not even thinking.
@@barryoffeastenders youre right. i guess cringe grifter suits him better
"Of this debate" if you think we're being treated to guests on either side of some single two-sided debate I don't think you're paying much attention to the channel
Never heard anybody phrase that question better. 'Why is seeing people through the lens of race cool again?'
Caught him off guard
As a brit and as someone who has grown up in London (perhaps the most multiracial society in the world) the idea of affirmative action, or segregation in the name of social justice was and is mind blowing. It seems like putting out a fire with more fire?!
@@Llooktook why would you think the idea of equality of outcome to fight for those who have been historically and continuously in a position of disadvantage mind blowing, and im saying this as a brit who has grown up in London. Are you also against the idea of contextual offers for university students who live in disadvantaged areas too?
@@Llooktook ppl are asking for equality I don't see why that is mind blowing 😂
@@Llooktook I agree completely. There is no need to focus on race when you could just as easily categorize people by where they live, their income, or any other meaningful factors. Why should wealthy black people get more stuff from the government than wealthy white people? They’re not at a disadvantage. They don’t need affirmative action. The poor people with no opportunities in an economy where every job requires something they don’t have? Those are the people who need help.
The main takeaway from the callback studies is that it indicates a racial bias that continues into the workplace. Blind hiring for the first stage of applicants doesn’t address that racial bias which would be present once the applicant is hired.
Yup, they really missed the point of those studies. Bias doesn't stop being an issue after callback - in most cases follow-up interviews (and even being hired as you say) would still expose the applicants to the same conscious and unconscious biases.
I'm also surprised that neither of them mentioned the various reasons (besides racial profiling) that companies have to want to know an applicant's real name. Background and social media checks are extremely common nowadays and would be impossible if you tried to hire blind.
I suppose you have a better suggestion?
Theoretically you should have blind metrics every step of the way: school, university, hiring and promotions. Among other measures to make sure there is equal opportunity. In practice, it can be difficult. But blind hiring is definitely an improvement.
@@samalama5000well the first idea that came to my mind is that you have those done by separate HR people. One person checks purely off of nameless résumé’s while the other uses the names to look at backgrounds. Then do a phone interview instead of in person in order to avoid visual bias. Of course, vocals can also bias someone, but I’m not sure if text interviews are necessary.
@@steggyweggy That does sound better but still runs into similar issues and comes at a cost to the company.
How would we be sure that bias wouldn't influence the background investigation?
Here to back the latinx comment, we all considered it a type of Newspeak slur. Latino is already gender neutral when used for a group. It was very insulting to imply our language was toxic.
I don't personally know any progressives that use latinx. I've seen it used on a business from once talking about being a "latinx owned business". The subject is as absurd in the level of criticism as it is to be criticized. No one really actually uses it or cares.
I use a survey on this in class to show the class divide around political correctness and how elite and on the ground linguistic values and norms often differ.
Latinx was invented by Latinos/latinas/latinx
Agreed, the Spanish language is very clear and has a variety of ways to express complex thought. Reducing the language because of mere American social grievance is absolutely disgraceful.
Latinx is a term made by Latino people…
Here is my statement before i watched 30 seconds
LMAO
I disagree and conclude that you are a bad person.
Lol.
i watched 45 seconds(15 more than you did) and i must say that you are entirely incorrect
I hope future historians read this comment to understand our culture. It explains most of this world we live in today.
I'm not entirely convinced that external threats are reliably good at uniting people.
The cold War was a bit before my time, but my understanding was that gay people were often persecuted in countires of either side of it, with the USA thinking that gay people were communist spies sent to corrupt the culture, and Soviet countries sometimes viewing gay people as capitalist decadence.
And didn't the US have Japanese internment camps during WW2?
It could be the case that it is true more often than it is not, but I think that requires some analysis, since there are certainly cases of divisions getting deeper despite being faced with external threats.
Aren't all your examples just once in-group people got labelled as the collaborators of the external threat? That they're viewed as "not properly in-group", you know, they're supposed the to be enemy within, the fifth column, etc. In this sesne, an external threat is uniting the people beacause the marginalized are conveniently not considered to be part of the people proper, or the silent majority, what have you. It's the old trick of Bismarck, negative integration: just make some enemies, then your people will consolidate.
@@alanho6814 Sure but if we just pick groups we don't like and label them as part of the enemy it isn't really banding together is it
well yeah but who are you gonna make the external threat then?@@Shadescape12
I am stupid or does the US fail to acknowledge net worth and annual income as the most driving factors of privilege? I am from germany and it is normal that some laws or governmental supports require you to disclose your income in order to be alligeble for those kinds of supports?
Well we do have to disclose income in order to receive aid from government programs, but Americans that care about social justice seem to think race and gender are more important proxies than income.
The police don't check your income before they shoot
@@beanbrewer They also don't care about your race when you reach for their weapon.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the people in America who need help the most will ever be allowed to get it. We have a very brilliant and meticulous system in place that demolishes the unlucky and impoverished.
A lot of Americans believe that if you just work hard, you'll rise to the top. Helping the poor, then, is throwing away your money - if they were able to make use of it, they'd have climbed the ladder already.
The reason government gets involved in these things (often times ineffectively) is because relying on the individual themselves (an employer for instance) on self-enforcement is inherently reliant on that enforcer acting in good faith. This country (the US) has never been great at good faith.
Great points raised, dont get me wrong. It's the lack of there ever being a well structured/considered alternative to government stepping in where he loses me.
I’m surprised Alex didn’t mention that blind marking in universities is common practice in the uk.
In short: isn't it location/income/luck? and then that correlates strongly with race due to old and modern factors based on combinations of injustice, including a lot of racism.
HOPE YOU WERE BEING IRONIC
Yeah you've got it backwards though base your social policies on class and you'll help a given race in proportion to its disparity otherwise you'll leave poor whites in poverty...use better proxies
Not really. It's mostly quality of education dictated by cultural values. Definitely luck in the sense of the family and proximity you are born into and whether they teach the importance of education. You can argue that cultures value education less due to past injustice but I don't see how that changes the fact that the required solution is better education in any case so that people are self determined to offer their goods and services in trade with others.
Kind of, yea
Thats basically what systemic racism/oppresion is
@kjamestaylor How so? Early New Deal Policies specifically excluded African Americans. These policies made a clear path to homeownership and the concept of the middle class in America. Why would the ripple effect stay in past? If you own a home which passed down generations. You can pull equity from your home for college, starting a small business or emergencies. Something you can't do when you rent or are mandated by government policy to only buy depreciating homes.
I agree, racists should voluntarily stop their racist hiring practices, I don’t understand why they won’t and I refuse to get the government involved. I am very smart and work for the heritage foundation btw.
Hahaha, yes I love his insistence that it should be easy to get racists to change their racist policies.
« Im also just a liberal who’s funded by the heritage foundation and work with Christopher rufo and the Manhattan institute » who believed this shit
There’s racist people for sure, but did you not catch he was talking about unconscious bias, which is different than conscious bias aka what you’re talking about
@@shreenybeany1751 even if I grant the unconscious bias is always totally not conscious and not backed up by post hoc justifications those people create in their minds: what about the “conscious” racists? Should we allow them to deny people careers based on race?
@@shreenybeany1751if someone unconsciously breaks your legs, are your legs not still broken?
Most racism, I like to believe, is unconscious. When you look at sentencing disparities between black men and white men, I like to believe that those judges who have essentially created those statistics at least THINK they are acting unbiasedly. That said, do you think the black man with the 60% longer sentence for the same crime really gives a 💩 if the judge has self actualized and is in touch with his inner biases?
Coleman's deflecting on the hiring standards point. The restaurant hiring family members that happen to be Yemeni is not not hiring them on the basis of race. For the Italian restaurant example, there are already carve outs in the law to hire certain classes of people if it's relevant for the job. Hooters isn't going to be made to hire men. Current anti-discrimination legal standards already handle these cases, he's trying to obfuscate that to make a broad attack against fairness standards.
I also found the example confusing. Expecting small family businesses to keep to the same standards and scrutiny as corporations is bizarre and not something anyone seriously involved in these conversations would be advocating for.
Also, I'm not sure why the government couldn't mandate bias-blindness procedures for companies above certain thresholds. If they're so advantageous, where is the harm in making them compulsory?
I expected Alex to ask these questions and I can't lie, I was disappointed at how much the guest was able to get away with unchallenged.
This is the only way Hughs operates, especially when being interviewed by someone less familiar with race policy in the US. He straw mans and distorts the situation so he can sound more reasonable. He absolutely knows better about the ethnic restaurant example, and Alex sadly does not pick up on it.
Yet he’s happy to dismiss cherry-picking the occasional liberal being banned on pre-Musk Twitter.
Total double standards.
This is a common theme with him and the rest of the Manhattan institute ghouls perpetually obfuscatory and disingenuous
He reacted to the question whether a government should implement this. He argues that a government wouldn't look at the details of such a business to be able to hire one ethnicity and therefore argues against the statement.
Give people healthcare, housing, yes maybe UBI and access to food/water that isn't going to give them and their children cancer and none of these problems will manifest themselves. "BUT the state will have too much power" ok fair enough. Democratize our workplaces so that the workers determine where the fruits of THEIR labor are spent and we will have all of these things and more.
I mostly agree. I think the majority of modern American racism is based on social class and culture that is heavily influenced by social class. The negative (and positive) associations between race and social class should go away in a generation or two after socioeconomic equality between races has been reached.
> There's a much smaller number of people who (even with good education) are biased towards their own race for solely biological reasons, and the only way I see a world without those people is after all races eventually (more or less) combine into one.
“Democratize workplaces” - In certain workplaces, especially government workplaces only, right? Or do you think it should be more widespread, entering into private organisations?
I have little faith that such a system could ever exist successfully for very long due to traits that will always be a part of human nature: fatigue and apathy. Direct democracy takes a lot of work. Inevitability, the majority of people will prefer to outsource most of that work to representatives. As with government, so also with labor. Soon, you end up with executives again.
This will never not happen. Hierarchies will always manifest. Governments who forbid them from existing will find their workforce and economy far less productive and competitive than economies where they’re allowed to exist.
Anarchist libertarians have the same problem. The system they want can only exist if the population is interested in spending far more of their time and effort on communal governance than they ever actually will. Socialists and anarchists are so close to each other on this matter that they almost bend the horseshoe into a closed circle.
I agree. We SHOULD seize the means of production as the laboring class.
@MachFiveFalcon Black culture is terrible. Period. That's the problem. No one wants to be around blacks because of their behavior. Some blacks with money are even worse.
“you never zero out on crazy people “
8:23 not very far in and curious to see how it will progress but immediately this man gives me a “smart person for dumb people” vibe. There’s a few reasons for this, the summary of his ideas have a lot of appeals to intuition, this alone usually raises my skepticism. Also the first question is immediately met with an obvious, to me at least, canned answer. This quadrant statement seemed to be loaded in the chamber but only shared similar rhetorical signifiers with Alex’s question. As if he has trained himself to pick out keywords that can be tied to canned statements he wants to make. I felt this quadrant answer didn’t meaningfully address the actual question and came across a bit as nonsense only sharing some terms and themes with the question. I think he wanted to set up this framework but because it wasn’t a natural response to the actual question it falls apart when Alex asks a follow up. Curious to see how the rest of the conversation plays out but wanted to drop a comment about the, in my opinion, poor first impression
Certainly the most suspect part is when an intellectual that way sits back and thinks of how some majorly large forces on the outside actually operate. Conceptually the law might be too hard to enforce, but is that true in practice? Maybe not, likely it only comes up when people have been pretty noticeably racist for awhile, for instance in the case of what they've been talking about.
10:12 hmm so far he continues to make some pretty poor arguments that once again aim at intuition and people’s weakness considering large numbers and statistics. A single year over year revenue can hold as many predictive problems as selecting for race and gender when determining “need”. Once again this is about using things that we feel intuitively are more linked. Business revenue and financial need feel more fairly associated because they both carry the signifier of usually being measured in dollars. However without additional data it’s certainly possible that race and gender have a higher correlation with financial need than decreased earnings. Especially if you are limiting it to just one year over year metric. Then even if it was found to have a higher predictive utility there might be a cost issue in information collection and processing that would reduce the overall benefit and create a less effective outcome even if you can direct the total benefit more efficiently. The truth is a rollout of billions to millions is a lot more complicated than “they should have given it to people who need it and not just black people” but as a sound bite it sure sounds good
37:06 I’m further in and this is a terrible conversation to be frank. Interesting, but terrible. I’ve seen Alex push back far harder on others in past conversations and I’m not sure why the kid gloves on somebody who is, really just making a bunch of stuff up. He is constantly strawmanning his opposition, making contradictory claims right after one another, and crumbling under the extremely light questioning Alex is doing. I don’t want to just list examples because it’s almost every claim he makes. Why are dolls and cartoons implied to be worthless indicators for a child’s reaction to race? What’s a better indicator? If you read any opposing views at all you will understand the opposition to “color blindness” is not “we can see people are different colors” not even remotely it’s that these social groups related to ethnicity often do have generally different experiences and “color blindness” can be used nefariously but sometimes unintentionally to ignore these unique perspectives and challenges. He also accuses opposition of trying to frame things only through gender or race (which already is multiple layers of analysis and is only one method of analysis if you group everything you don’t like into one category based on the related trait of your distaste) but then uses this as grounds that we should reject those frameworks entirely. This amounts to saying “people are restrictive in their analysis and we can fix this by being restrictive in our analysis”. I can’t know a persons mind but I can make a reasonable guess, if he has read about this subject, read his opposition then he is probably aware that his claims are unfounded but rather is constructing his arguments to be marketable versus accurate. I’d be surprised if these beliefs are genuinely held but of course I can’t know that…
You seem very upset by this. Are you black yourself?
@@barryoffeastenders interesting line of questioning. Do you believe I have no grounds to have an emotional response to the conversation? Should I feel neutral when I think something is doing very little to push back on bad ideas? I’m curious why you feel my race is significant. I’ll play along though, I felt relatively mild about the conversation, I just type a lot. Also I’m white, but not American. Hopefully your curiosity is satiated
I think Hughes' example of a "low information/high stakes" scenario where you need to judge people on race, is very telling of his politics. Statistics consistently show that terrorism in the US is predominantly done by white people, especially far-right or white supremacist white people (This appears to also be true in the UK but I am less familiar with their statistics). So the only reason to assume that a terrorist would look like "Ramy Youssef" over "Meryl Streep" is if you were racist towards middle eastern people (Or Islamophobic, which is not technically a race-based hatred, but many islamaphobes do not differentiate between Muslims and middle eastern people in general). I am actually disappointed in Alex for not calling him out on this, he just passively, and almost reflexively, agrees with this blatantly and obviously racist statement. It left a very sour taste in my mouth for the entire interview. I find that when it comes to certain topics Alex is able to ask very pointed questions to make the interviewer uncomfortable, but when given a very racist statement here he just says "sure, sure" and moves on.
Please point to me when he stated that most terrorists are arab or muslim. To me, it seems like he only said that if a cop knows the race of a suspect and then profiles for that race, that'd be the logical thing to do in a high stakes situation. I may have misunderstood the video, but I didn't hear anything islamophobic.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nnit’s at around 5 minutes in. He roughly says “if there’s a bomb in Times Square the cops can guess the guy is middle eastern and/or Muslim“. Which seems to indicate he believes middle eastern people commit acts of terror in the us at significantly higher rates than white people, which is a racist assumption because it is demonstrably false
Not sure about the UK, but in the EU the vast majority of terrorism is jihadism. I would wager the reason the number is so low in the US is the fact that radical islamists are not even getting into the country in the first place.
Sure, it was Meryl Streep guys, let's go get her.
This was an interesting listen. My takeaway was that he’s happy to use dismissive language and lazy characterisations to make his point and that very much diminished any chance of me genuinely taking him seriously.
He indicated that Critical Race Theory calls for the destruction of many societal structures. This was scaremongering, plain and simple.
He claimed that nursery kids are explicitly having the idea that their respective races were historically oppressed/oppressors shoved down their throats. I’m highly sceptical of that. It sounds like a Fox News headline.
He’s happy to refer to ‘wokeness’ in a low-key derogatory way that removes any context of the complexity of its focus or background.
He seems to completely miss the point that many employers do not attempt to mask the name/race of prospective employees yet seems to see little problem with simply letting supposedly well-meaning employers organise this themselves when they clearly have little intention or incentive to do so.
He lazily characterises CRT and more generalised critiques of the make-up of society as using race as a means to judge people. I don’t think this is at all the thrust of these critiques. He seems to have a very one-dimensional and lazy opinion of these critiques.
In short, I really wasn’t impressed.
💯
He's actually extremely fair to the term "wokeness." Wokeness hasn't been a positive thing for over a decade now. There is no complexity to it whatsoever. What you're implying we should all go back to is to think about that word in its WOKE 1.0 phase 30 years ago (even that phase of it, it was a dumb concept; well, as smart as the phase "born-again" or "red-pilled"). Honestly, that's like asking the world to all go back to thinking about the word gay the way it was used in GAY 1.0 back in the days of Queen Elizabeth I, when it meant "happy" or "glad." WOKE-CURRENT EDITION, is actually the hodgepodge ideology that is exemplified by an oversimplistic activism which wrongly believes in the boogeyman of "systemic oppression" (while utterly failing at actually pointing out actual oppression and coming up with workable solutions to them). Case in point: affirmative action. A most unintelligent idea that even the dodo bird would find intellectually insufficient. Wokeness 5.0 or whatever the current edition is these days, is all sound and fury and lots of words words words and articles and conferences and power point presentations and diversity trainings and news articles and protest histrionics, all of which amount to nothing. It has divided American society more, and now has made its way over the pond to Europe, over the Pacific to the Far East, all over, etc. and have begun to infect the youth there. Luckily most of us non-Americans are still smart enough to see its politburo roots, especially those of us from former iron curtain countries.
@@user-yp6yr9te7l wokeness 5.0, as you call it, is a caricature. A boogie man made up by people who don’t want to spend more than 15 seconds considering why the world might be more complex than they would like it to be. People who think it’s somehow reasonable to pretend that the racial segregation that occurred within living memory of a huge number of people has not resulted in systemic effects that prolong the impact of overt historical racism.
It kind of sounds like you're admitting to not having listened to what he had to say.
@@markleavitt3297 nope. I’m admitting to not taking him seriously as a thinker because many of his points were founded on straw men.
The problem with this line of thinking is that the historical ruling class of Great Britain and the United States established and reinforced the distinction between White and Black. The consequences of that history of oppression is the reason that racial categories are still relevant today. The enormous wealth gap between these groups (again created and sustained by the ruling class) is a prime example but similar disparities exist in all areas of society (e.g. healthcare outcomes, childhood mortality, education, credit)
Coleman is conman ? Why invite this person? Do your research before inviting conman!
I've been following Coleman since the George Floyd riots. It's great to see him getting a lot more exposure these days.
Sure is. Coleman is a very wise man
@@brianmeen2158yeah, if you're a dumb racist, I'm sure he is.
Reading through the comments section it's clear that much of the audience are not really "critical thinkers" they have just bought into easy "critical" narratives from one side of the political aisle, and stopped considering perspectives to the contrary.
Many platitudes, deflections, and at least one person calling him a racial slur (but in a progressive way so it's apparently fine).
How does one become a "critical thinker"?
Me when I think both siding makes me smart.
@@jamesdavis3851 Good place to start is by having some humility.
People commenting platitudes or calling him naive to reject his ideas minutes after this hour long video came out clearly lack humility.
@@notcesr7136 Was looking for advice, sorry I haven't read the comments that are bothering you (probably good not to). Can't judge my own humility... books something?
@@angrashadow2958this
The whole “white allies need to shut up and listen when ‘POC’ talk about race” thing goes out the window when we say the wrong things about race, doesn’t it 😅
A lot of heated white people in this comment section proves just that.
Yes, yes it does
Black people don't know who this dude is for a very important reason. This guy isn't some spokesperson that mirror the popular sentiment among black people. His audience is white conservatives. Alex should talk to FD signifier. Someone who does have clout with black people. I got a good idea what he'd say about this dude though.
@@Nick-o-time I'm not sure just interviewing hard core racists is as interesting.
@@Zangelinhe interviewed Sam Harris and a bunch of these goons ate it up.
Sure these cell phone videos are catching the scene midway. But then people are learning to turn on their phones and dash cams immediately before the cop walks up to their car door. Also we get an FOIA for the chest camera film and find out the cops turn off their cameras, delete the footage, or we get the cop's footage. Then, with the camera footage from the victims and bystanders and the cop's chest cam, we see what happened. If the cop was in the wrong, by public standards, not police standards, the police force never, not once, adjusts their training policy for what the public will find acceptible to consent to by the handling of the police. Also, the police force never fires the cop. The cop gets to resign and just rehires at the next police station in the next county over, etc. There's zero accountability held to the police force at all that the public finds acceptable. And Coleman, you know this is the point of what the public is addressing. So stop lying with these BS responses on this topic. This is why people asked to defund the entire police force because the police force couldnt police itself. Its the catholic church rape scandle all over again but in blue uniforms. At least the CC relocated these rapist priests back into Rome and exhiled them there. These police officers are still driving around our neighborhoods and our government still allows qualified immunity to be the law of the land. So yes there will be civil unrest when the police and the government are in bed together to ignore the will of the populace. It was never about these bad cops doing what they did, it was the fact that the system of governance to hold these cops accountable continues to be broken despite all these years of cell phone, dash cam, and chest cam footage of these bad apples getting away with it. Funny how much of a vacuum was left in this discussion by Alex to not point this out.
27:00 You can be religious and Secular. Secularism is just the inclusion of all people to the discussion of how to live the good life through governance. Theocracies are innately non-secular because they are explicilty non-inclusive to every other religious and nonreligious group. Secular governments are the safest governments for religius pluralism. Theocracies crush different cultural religions in every count in recorded history.
27:50 God and Country are no longer cool because the unifying factor here is that people are asking these entities to justify their implied power over the populace. When these entities cant, like religions, gods, governments, etc. Then we, the people, start to remove these power structures over us to a level we, the people, would consent to being governed. The reason that younger generations are challenging these systems is because the older generations have too much to risk at addressing these issues. The older generation have careers and family to care for and cant risk political activism to change the system so these older generations rely on the bravery of younger generations to do the work that the older generation refuses to do. As Thurmberg pointed out. How dare you be cowards to have to rely on children to fight your battles and to fix your messes. We should be in school, not on picket lines or testifying to the UN.
30:30 The reason that populations are uncivil during peace time is because the powers that the voting populace gave their government during a time of crisis was to be temporary, not perminant. Coleman knows this, Alex knows this...and yet neither pointed this fact out. Which shows their ignorance in interview discussions that you can challenge and still be civil. Being agree able is not being civil because there's no conflict of ideas. You're civil and respectible in the face of adversity, not the absence of it.
The populace is having political upheavals because the voting populace is trying to force their government to relenquish its temporary powers to address a temporary crisis. That's all it is. We want to the government to not force its populace into a police state as a the norm.
Amy Goodman still says Latinx in her videos on Democracy now, and I wish she would stop.
We can't even say it easily in Argentina. The Spanish doesn't flow into that word. We hate, hate, hate when white US liberals tell us to use thay
Great strides have been made in combatting racism, but they're being undermined by gross economic inequality which resuscitates systemic racism of the past that might have disappeared without that economic inequality. If you truly want equality of opportunity, all children must be given as similar a chance of succeeding as possible - and that success when manifested in adulthood must not be used to create a whole new generation of inequality.
Identity politics is a cancer in our society
Indeed. Unless it's Israel of course in which case we must send in the national guard to protect Safe Spaces. Protesting is literally the holocaust.
Easy to say when you arent directly being targeted for your identity by politicians and policies ( and therefore police)
Racism is a cancer in our society. Big money in politics in a cancer in our politics. The military industrial complex and wall street is a cancer to our society.
@@VampireSquirreldid you listen to Hughes argument properly?
That's your takeaway from this video? Did you even watch it and listen to it? Is English your first language?
I think the issue with colorblindness is that it's used to throw away the idea that people face discrimination based on their race. I don't think feigning colorblindness is a pathway to actually make a colorblind society, and I think the reality is that it's more feigning than actually being earnest.
Did you listen to a single minute of the interview? You can't feign the colourblindness he advocates, which is that we should try to treat people without regard to race, especially in terms of public policy. That is exactly what MLK fought for.
@@wichitalineman86 yeah I listened to the whole thing. YOU must have read my statement and YOU disregarded it. I am all for doing things to FORCE colorblindness (like not having names on resumes and anonymous applications) within processes but it's impossible to do that with everything. I am just pointing out how "colorblindness" is used to remove race from discussion while a significant portion of this country VOTE based (in part) on their hatred of POC. I agree with the idea that uplifting people economically MAY help mitigate the bigoted beliefs if they don't have stereotypes associated with being poor and uneducated. I fail to see any solution aside from this basic idea that the guy presented - and I don't think it's simply because I didn't get it.
@daniel-panek But you are just claiming it's being used that way without any evidence. And sure, there's going to be one offs in any group that think crazy. But the large majority of people advocating for colorblindless aren't doing it under some guise of racism. Especially since what Coleman is advacting for would certainly help minorities. And so even if they are using it as a guise for racism, I'm kind of okay with it since they are actually helping minorities, even if they don't realize it.
Even white people face discrimination in the face of wokeism. Blindness is stupid, yet it's still better than what we had to this day.
@@daniel-panekwith all the hatred and disparagement directed towards white people in the modern day, I’d say POC are definitely not at the sharp end of the current poor state of race relations.
To me he’s talking sense, thanks for the interview. I didn’t teach my son that he’s an oppressor. I taught him why humans have different skin. He has a basic understanding on melanin in humans and ancestry. He thinks it’s a cool thing about being human. He’s like me and has bright red hair. He knows that roughly only 5% of the UK have natural red hair like him. He’s proud of being ginger ❤.
This is incredibly frustrating to watch, for all the reasons that are obvious the moment this guy shows up. Nobody is arguing Yemenis or Italians or whoever else can’t hire whoever they want. Small family businesses can do whatever, no one cares. These laws apply to larger businesses. It’s fine that ideologically he objects to government intervention, but the reality is that if it weren’t for the Civil Rights Act, America would still have segregated restaurants and golf clubs. And he knows goddamn well that people very much did care that the NBA is so heavily black. It was a point of controversy until at least about the year 2000 if not later, and actually the NBA was dying on its feet until they revitalized it by hyping up the race-based Magic vs Bird, white vs black thing. I wouldn’t expect Alex to know that, but Coleman does and is pretending not to because conservative ideology is leading his every opinion. Which is fair enough, but it’s frustrating that he’s just lying.
Your comment is incredibly frustrating to read. Coleman isn't referring to late 90s state of things, but to the 2020s state of things. Thinking that Coleman is an American Conservative is even more frustrating.
@@user-yp6yr9te7lhe might not personally be a conservative his talking points the people who pay him the think tanks he work for are all explicitly conservative
@@shelovinthecrew Why are finding a label for him and his arguments necessary? So you have a good justification to dismiss it?
@@shelovinthecrew They are also talking points of independents, libertarians and centrists, and also centre-Left liberals. He doesn't work for any think tanks. And I would caution against any application of the association fallacy. It also does not matter if something is conservative or liberal. It only matters if the conservative point is correct, or if the liberal point is correct, about a certain thing. But that is moot because his points are not exclusive to Conservatism.
@@user-yp6yr9te7l im not attributing anything to him I just fundamentally disagree with the things he’s saying bc he’s consistently one of the hackedut pundits around engages in gross obfuscation
Race certainly shouldn't be relevant, but the fact remains it is... In my family home, South Gate california, black families were being refused the sale of homes at least through the 60s. I can't claim superior knowledge about Jersey, but in California the American Sanctuary state, black families were systemically prevented from accruing any form of generational wealth, while my family's ability to do so was protected by law. That is an unfair advantage, in living memory. How do we not call this institutional racism? Even if we pretend it all ended 60 years ago, 60 years ago is fucking recently.... My grandma absolves herself by saying she didn't know, but not only did she benefit, but I did too.
Reparations matter. Especially in the US. Not cash reparations, but access to education, for example. Your guest is so weird. He's right about how class issues divide us all, but he's using it to try and hide other issues, that's pretty oof. Intersectionality will free us. It started as intersectional feminism, but their main point was that all these issues intersect and they were right. It's a gordian knot, and if we only tug at one string at a time, we run the risk of making the knot tighter and harder to undue.... It's good that we have him to tug on the strings of class, it's not one person's job to undue the whole knot, and that's why it's good actually that so many leftists are focused on so many different issues. It's unfortunate that he seems to think of the rest of us as misguided, though. Our infighting is the best.
Why aren't blacks being given access to education in the US? Isn't that unconstitutional?
@@Bill-ni3esThey are but historic redlining policies forced many black people into neighborhoods that were considered less desirable. This could be because of anything ranging from environmental polution to poor neighborhood schools. If you look at maps of the racial makeup in American cities, neighborhoods are still extremely segregated even though those redlining policies have theoretically ended (every now and then, some sort of discrimination that continues today gets brought to light but its unclear how widespread that is). And then neighborhood schools are, in part, funded based on property taxes. So many poor schools continue to be underfunded and more well off schools get better funding. We have programs that pour more funding into schools in these neighborhoods, but a lot of the problem is that they're starting off with crumbling infustructure and less experienced staff and in communities that have traditionally not cared as much about education because they haven't seen how education can help lift them out of poverty, and it turns out that the amount of additional funding they need to get caught up to these better schools is way more than what they're getting.
“Intersectionality will save us” ?
Also, couldn’t your comment be what your type refer to as ‘whitesplaining’ ?
@@lexaray5 Is the way these funds are being managed, play a part in creating this inferior education system? Does the community issue of not valuing education lead to corruption and mismanagement? I know of several countries where money allocated to education, does not reach its intended purpose and simply pouring more money into the problem will just make corrupt individuals more wealthy.
Having researched that unjust law of black people not being able to own property - it was not only limited to black people though. In fact, land ownership was prohibited by 'aliens not of the white race'. That would include asians. So why are asians now being discriminated against? Asians are being restricted access to colleges. Why are asians excelling despite the huge injustices of the past and not being able to build generational wealth?
11:52 to 13:48 - Coleman Hughes acknowledging that racism exists, citing solid evidence for it existing, and providing a solution to remedy it.
12:42 to 13:52 - Companies virtue signal caring about racism but don't implement this common sense antiracist practice.
36:37 to 36:17 - Coleman says what colorblindness is.
43:33 to 47:03 - Remarkable differences between elites (e.g., Ivy Leagues and legacy media) and non-elites.
Nice one 👍
Hmmm, I saw no remedies being proposed except "companies should be less racist". Well, erm, yeah, I could have told you that. That's no different at all from what the social justice warriors say. They just don't think that a podcaster wishing it is going to make much of a difference.
@@weaq84
_Hmmm. I saw no remedies being proposed except "companies should be less racist"._
One remedy Coleman proposed is to remove the names from the resumés when evaluating them to help avoid the type of racial bias he talked about in 11:52 to 13:48 (which is also the time stamp region he talked about his proposed remedies).
Coleman didn't just say "companies should be less racist" he proposed more specific policies for companies that would help accomplish that goal.
@@wadetisthammer3612 WHen I moved to the US I was surprised by resumes not having pictures. Now I think it's a great idea and encripting names for the first filter seems natural.
@20:49 Eh...what?...yeah, they actually did.
Because integration didn't just mean multiple colours of people played the sport it.
It fundamentally changed the game.
Just look at what the average height use to be for players.
Good lord, I know this seems a silly point but integration actually really did change how the game was played.
The fact that he fumbles this basic of a thing brings in to doubt any other insight he might offer. :(
He has no insights. It's a minstrel show.
@@Nick-o-time So true. Black people who disagree with you totally warrant racial insults.
I don't get what you're saying here. He's saying no one claims the NBA has racist hiring practices because of the predominance of black players.
Twitter under Musk has more free speech. The inevitable outcome of free speech is an increase in bad speech. Alex's question of is it a good trade-off isn't a Twitter question. It's a free-speech question. The question was never, do we have a better fairer way to police the speech so that its not shutting down reasonably mainstream ideas that shouldn't be censored. But rather, should we be policing the speech at all.
I was hoping for some time you two would get together! Really excited! Going to listen to this now, thanks in advance
Alex, you asked if there has been imperical research on racial bias in children. I studied developmental psychology at university and read through a few of these studies. I can say that they pretty much confirm what Coleman stated, that children are born with no inherent racial bias unless they had been previously subjected to/taught racial discrimination by an authority figure. Humans are born without racial bias. Point blank.
Two of the best young public intellectuals
Why am i blocked
Totally agree!
Coleman Hughes just repeats heritage foundation talking points.
@@TheViktorofgilead then you aren’t listening closely enough
@@skepticalbutopen4620 or you’re not familiar…
It's a shame that they dismissed government intervention so quickly. Like Alex said at the end of that topic - it doesn't have to be an all or nothing approach.
Mandating that companies (maybe of a certain size and within certain industries) use some service that anonymizes incoming resumes seems totally feasible. It's likely cheap and can be audited easily. (And some companies ARE doing that already.)
Just answering the title question here, that is like asking should we take LGBT issues out of politics. I would love it if no one cared about hurting LGBT people and would just let us live our lives in peace, but unfortunately that's not the world we live in, so we must have LGBT issues in politics. Well, I don't see how race is any different. In an ideal world we would all be treated like human beings with dignity, but that is not the world we live in.
So if someone said we should take LGBT issues out of politics, it would make think either one of two things, about them, either they are naive and think that there is no political discrimination of LGBT people, or they know that there is but want to remove one of our tools for fighting back and actually was an enemy to LGBT people.
So it makes me wonder, is our speaker naive or an enemy.
LGBT and any other minority class is free to do whatever they want in America as Is everyone else.
Where is there legal discrimination based on race?
If you think Coleman Hughes is your enemy, you are likely the enemy of yourself.
@@alibabaschultz352
Depends on what you mean. Do you mean something that is not explicitly racist but made with racist goals in mind? In that case there have been several gerrymandered election maps in some US states like North Carolina that have found to have been intentionally made to be discriminatory against black people. I seriously doubt that this issue is solved and there are probably other gerrymandered racist election districts.
That's just one thing off the top of my head. Can you be more specific in what you are looking for?
I totally agree with you. I feel like his commentary missed a lot on the efforts by right wing provocateurs to inflame racial tensions.
37:18 a good follow up question would have simply been "where does the impulse to treat people differently according to their skin color come from?". I mean, do we discriminate against people who are tall or small? Do we discriminate against people with big hands or small hands? There are many physical differences that never show up as negative reasons to discriminate against someone with a level of consistency like racial features. You don't get rejected for a job or renting a house because your hands are too small or too big... How come this happens with skin color?
Another question:"concretely, how do different treatments based on skin color manifest themselves in society when you are white and non white?"
I can't believe that none of those questions came to the mind of someone who has shown more critical thinking. My only explanation is that Alex is not particularly literate on those topics, so why even talk about that in the first place?
Coleman speaks with so much moral and logical clarity on this issue. Race isnt determitive of anything in American culture today. To believe it is and to promote this idea, only hinders the potential that all people intrinsically have.
That's your takeaway from this video? Did you even watch it and listen to it? Is English your first language?
@@KYSMO Well, since the video is an hour, and my comment was made 38 minutes ago, I did not watch the entire video.
But I listen to both these people relatively often so I'm aware of their positions. Let me know what i said that you take issue with.
Yeah race doesn’t determine anything and neither does ethnicity, religion, sex, disability, class, wealth, or education.. oh wait!
Race is kinda a staple of American history. You’re telling me slavery, black codes,Jim Crow, and segregation were of no consequence? If so please explain the disparities.
We ain’t solving any issue or seeing any optimal potential by lying to ourselves
@@kanggeorge4781 Never said any of that. I said, race isn't determitive of anything in American Culture TODAY. Of course there is a history in America, and a history all across the world that focused heavily on race. But today, in America, everyone has opportunity to overcome historical injustices that every human on the planet was subjected to.
@@nb4411The guy you are praising in your comment referenced a meta analysis in this very video that showed significant racial discrimination TODAY. That's why people are questioning your listening comprehension
So great seeing two of my favo(u)rite people on the internet together! I've been following both of you since the very early days. Great interview.
I'm about 13min in but I'm already starting to realize that whether I agree with him really comes down to what he means by words like harm, discrimination and phrases like "bleeding out". I need to know the nature and scope of these words in the context with which he speaks. For instance a meta-analysis of call backs is a very thin slice of data and I'm not entirely sure his language is always bounded by that scope when talking about harm and discrimination in that context.
Business owners care about profits and more often than not will hire whoever will best help them achieve more profits. The incentive to hire the best person is baked into the cake. If a racist business owner doesn’t hire qualified applicants because of their skin tone then the business owner bears the cost of his racism by missing out on the gains he would’ve received had he hired the right person.
I see the allure of Hughes' position, but I still think it goes too far in the other direction and minimizes the issues that arise from material conditions in America, at least.
It's great to say we shouldn't evaluate people in purely racial terms, but the reality is that when we _do,_ the effects of structural racism are obvious.
If by structural racism you mean the disproportionate rates of poverty, fatherlessness, non-college parents, etc. resulting from the legacy of racial policy then Coleman's point is that all of these factors are race-irrelevant and we should be addressing them without focusing on race.
If race is not a privileged category then we have no reason to care that one race has a higher concentration of bad outcomes. It is not obvious that a black child suffering unjust disadvantages is worse than a white child suffering the same disadvantages because of the historical conditions leading to this outcome or their disproportionate representation.
As an example: if I told you that people born in October were 50% more likely to have parents in the bottom quintile of earners, you may be surprised but you wouldn't start giving everyone born in October an edge in college admissions. Because the October birthday isn't the hindrance.
@@notcesr7136 If I might tweak your analogy:
In your hypothetical world, there has been a popular misconception that people born in October are somehow less human than everyone else. Indeed, this position has been advanced by the civil government, in part or in whole, for centuries. People with October birthdays suffer discrimination in almost every facet of their lives. Police are more likely to arrest or harm them. Judges are more likely to give them comparatively harsh treatment. Many laws are tuned, deliberately or not, to harm them. Doctors are less likely to help them. People are less likely to hire them. And on and on.
Yeah, I can see wanting to help them out now.
@@shassett79but what about other people that have different disadvantages? Economic, socio-cultural or whatever. You re implying that being born in October is the ultimate disadvantage. What about some orphan child or somebody whose parent abused them? Are they not going to get the help given to people born in October that had the advantage of having both loving parents? Now You giving a unfair advantage to some people born in October. Situations need to be assesed case by case. And altough, what you re saying is generally true, It s not true in the absolute, there are plenty of exeptions, therefore cannot be dealt with collective mesures that work in the absolute.
@@nicolagaballo3120 "but what about other people that have different disadvantages?"
We can do more than one thing at a time, you know...
"You re implying that being born in October is the ultimate disadvantage."
No, I'm not implying that. I'm just acknowledging material realities that make some people uncomfortable.
"Situations need to be assesed case by case"
In that case I guess you should propose a form of government in which all civil laws and policies are tailored to the idiosyncrasies of every individual. Good luck!
21:51 Where I think this goes off the rails NOW though, is no company can GET RID of "obvious Non-Performers" any more if they belong to a protected class without an expensive legal nightmare.
Absolutely love both of these minds! What a great collaboration.
One thing I will disagree with is race never being relevant to policy decisions. One thing to remember is there are definitive differences between races. For example Australian Aboriginals are significantly more likely to have dangerous negative health effects than non-Aboriginal Australians from Covid, so the Aus government supplied extra RATS free tests for Aboriginal people to encorage them to test more often because of the extra risks.
Not surprised at some of the comments here, too much emotion, very little facts.
Coleman is a good guest.
I couldn't have put it better
You should reply to any of the hundreds of rational arguments addressing specific claims instead *looks around* absolutely zero emotional appeals I saw on the way down to your comment. Just saying “people are appealing to emotion” is nonsense when just about every comment is a rational arguments.
I have to agree with @gamechairphilosopher960’s comment, and I’m even an admirer of Coleman’s. Very few of this video’s comments disagreeing with Coleman are emotional/illogical. Seriously, there’s not a whole lot of them. Just scroll and see for yourself.
In light of this, your comment comes across as a lazy dismissal one might resort to out of frustration, which ironically qualifies it as one of the few emotion-driven comments it was ostensibly intended to criticize.
@@gamechairphilosopher950 I don't know what to say other than this is not the case. There are a lot of people expressing disappointment in Alex for either having Coleman as a guest or not pushing back against his arguments.
@@markleavitt3297 one can express disappointment for Alex not pushing back on some dubious statements by Coleman and that not be appealing to emotion. I said as much in my own reply to the video.
I think the point about people seeing through the lens of what they are obsessed with is super important. I would add I think it's myriad, and can have a lot to do with what we do for money (as that often takes most of our day up).
Regardless of whether it is work or just your hobby, your obsession can very easily cause you to miss a lot of alternative perspectives.
I wish we lived in a society that promoted constant universal education rather than intense specialization or that we had much better sort of liminal bridges between specializations to have a better global understanding of human behavior, desires and needs.
I do think that CRT has a role in society but people who have specialized in it don't necessarily have good bridges.
People like me who didn't really get the most out of their CRT education but have empathy for suffering and have instead come from a lot of different perspectives as a student of life are often shunned from the political left.
As an optimist though I want to say that there are good and bad values coming out of what some people call "woke ideology" and that although some people have become obsessed I don't think race is quite as much of a non issue as the interview might have made it seem.
We have data showing not just disproportionate hiring practices but discrimination across the board from high to low stakes and while I agree many of these issues can also be characterized as a class issue there is all real practical value in pointing to the racial component as it illustrates how the social mechanism operates.
We do divide people up into groups and were it not race it would be eye color or something else. It doesn't essentially matter what race someone is but what does matter is that the state can use those differences as a controlling mechanism.
Disproportionate incarceration rates effectively eliminate a large percentage of black votes in the United States where a felony revokes your right to vote. Having a base of oppressed people allows you to constantly pit your own unruly oppressed constituents against them.
I could go on. The point is this, I think there is very good cause to point out race politics and practical value in talking about then openly. I sometimes see these color blind more moderate approaches as another arm of state control, conscious or not.
All that said the goal should be color blindness in the very end. To me I just don't see how we get there by simply "trying our best not to be racist" whilst the state has a vested interest in maintaining racial tensions.
The mechanism is fed by tension, there must always be an enemy. There's a good lecture series by Michele Foucault that kinda gets into the history of statehood that's worth a read.
Here's a question for coleman. What year did the usa stop judging people on the basis of race??
Coleman never said racism completely stopped - he just said we were headed towards a much better place(in terms of the way we saw and talked about race.
You try and fight racism with more racism and racism will only get worse. Common sense really
It started with ending segregation, and then following other laws
Never
What do you mean by “the USA”? That is ambiguous.
@brianmeen2158 No we haven't.Itsthe same bs with South Africa ,people have been given a superficial idea of progress, just because you saw Obama that didn't mean shit.
58:00 worth mentioning that when rating community notes, a pool of contributors is brought together to assess notes that intentionally includes other contributors with whom you've voted in opposition before. This means that notes must have some degree of concordance in a pool selected for a certain level of disagreement. It seems to have worked out very well in practice and it's kind of brilliant.
Did they address critical moustache theory ?
That's what I'm saying!
For all the comments against police. Sure racism exits and some cops are not doing their job well. However I assure from a Ground level there is a lot of good. I’m a white intercity er doctor going on forty years. The police are always bringing people to the Ed. Even in the old days I did not witness overt racism or unprofessional behavior. Just the opposite. They were first responders breaking up and preventing family fights, dealing with homelessness and alcohol/drug problems. They clearly were first responders breaking up fights, preventing family violence, and responding to a variety of medical problems. In one case the medics were called by police to a young man found in the brushes. The medics told the police he was ok but police thought something was wrong. He ended up having a traumatic intracranial bleed. In 40 years I saw no police brutality or racial attitudes. All I saw was them helping. Most black intercity moms want more police not less. Come work with me and see the help they provide to alcoholism, drug addiction and family violence.
It’s relevant when you’re talking about crime statistics, making immigration policy, picking a neighborhood to live in, when you’re picking a school for your kids to go to.
Pretending it isn’t leads to disaster.
For example, most violence is internal to race
I lived in a predominantly black neighborhood in the American Midwest from the ages of 4-17. These eggheads need to go on a ghetto safari and get a dose of reality. I would NEVER subject my children to what I went through. I live in a state with very high taxes compared to the national average, and it does nothing but make the problems worse. There are no readily available solutions to racial disparities in outcomes unless we can somehow change the behavior of millions of people. It's never going to happen. The problems will grow, and the taxes will rise until anything resembling our modern lifestyle is little more than a faint memory. I am saving money and moving to the whitest area I can as soon as possible. I suggest every capable person, regardless of race, does the same.
Great discussion - I suspect Coleman and Alex have much more to discuss on other subjects.
Bro lost me at 43:33 when he said, "The effect you're seeing is the difference between elites and non-elites, mainly." There were several dogwhistles in his rhetoric throughout, but that was the breaking point for me. How can you possibly defend that assumption? It's a classic right-wing talking point to refer to the "liberal elites" as a general dismissal of opposition. Completely undermined his credibility in my eyes. Then he goes on to say how his opinions are controversial in universities, especially "elite" universities like the Ivy League, but "everywhere else" that's "non-elite" his opinions are "common sense." What he's actually saying is that he gets disregarded by listeners that are educated on the history of systemic oppression, while those who don't have that necessary context just take his words at face value. Many "common sense" arguments sound compelling and downright intuitive until you actually pay attention and learn the complexities of the situation. I'm very disappointed.
Yep yep he managed to hide his grift well enough for me until then
That's because that history does not matter. If we keep dwelling on it we will never move forward. What happened over 50. .hell even over 10 years ago no longer matter. It's about the future and how we go forward.
Firstly, are you claiming that left wing ideology is the rational conclusion these people came to because of their high education? The issues with that are clear.
Secondly, being educated on how people became disadvantaged in the current day and age due to historic oppression doesn't mean we need to agree on the solution. Left leaning people seem to think we should give black people money to help them, regardless of whether specific individuals need it or not, instead of giving people in need money, regardless of their race. The same thing applies to affirmative action in colleges. Should we help black people, regardless of whether specific people need it, or should we help people who need help, regardless of race? To me, it doesn't seem obvious more history lessons on systemic oppression would change my answer.
You made it that far?
This guest lost me when he said sports (a highly genetic selective competition) was a meritocracy in work simply. ;)
Have a blessed day.
@@Toanleighyou missed the point. The point is that nobody gets advanced in sports unless they are actually the best athlete - that’s what a meritocracy means. They are advanced based on merit - not some other characteristic such as race or ethnicity
Race was clearly RELEVANT from the birth and development of this nation .🕵🏾
Without race being important this nation would not be the same Mr Hughes ✌🏾
As far as science is concerned there are no races.. just the human race. So maybe just stop using the word Alex. The human race is one, we don't subdivide. Humans can be split into ethnicities and nationalities but not races.
You’re right race is a social construction and sociologically, not biologically, here in America it maps onto a weird blend of ethnicity and skin tone. But the word still has a use in the sociological application.
Also the notion of a human race isn’t even biological concept. We’re the homo sapien species. The use of the word “human race” is like “kinds” from a creationist, another social construction with a different connotation.
@@justsomedude77 👍
@@justsomedude77 Yes. Any belief system however accurate or inaccurate is better understood than ignored, if only for the fact that there are people who believe in them and act if they are completely accurate.
Well yah but that wasn't the case in the past and the past have consequences in our reality , so yes we are humans! but practically we didn't reach this level yet, and we can't move on without solving the problems of our history that affect ppl today
What do you want us to call it? Human subspecies? We are different in more than just skincolour y'know.
@20:00 That is a great topic, It's easy to find articles from 2013 highlighting the merits of blind auditions and yet since 2020 apparently ethnicity should be considered (according to some journals) when selecting members of an orchestra.
I'm exhausted by these stands. Hiring the best person is such an easy concept and at the same times solves most issues of bias.
The transition in academia to centering nearly every psychological study around race/ethnicity is genuinely frightening.
Removing names from resumes has long been recommended by equity and diversity experts but the people who refuse to remove names are the same people who accuse equity and diversity groups of being guilty of "reverse racism."
That whole argument was insane
They keep bringing up ethnic restaurants as examples of how government mandates on "colorblindness" would be disastrous as if current discrimination laws didn't already account for those kinds of businesses just fine.
bingo
How about, instead of blindly attacking what you perceive to be the "bad side", you just make your point, and try to attract intelligent people to discuss.
Actually it's the very same people who initially pushed for it who are rejecting it now. There were studies done on the topic after the idea was proposed, and every time such policies were tried, they resulted in more white men being hired. And because the stated goal of these policies is not fair hiring practices, but to "increase diversity", it was reverted by those very same people. The "people who accuse equity and diversity groups" don't have the institutional power in the current state of the game to make any changes either way.
And this is by the way also the reason why the very same people were trying to repeal the civil rights law of California a few years back, which was put up to a referendum and luckily rejected by the electorate. Because it prevents the "equity and diversity groups" from being as openly discriminatory as they would like to be.
Because these people use "the fight against racism" to justify their own
"The Church refuses to explain sin away or make excuses for it or call it by another name. " Bishop Robert Barron
The most important aspect about identity is that you are only identical to yourself.
You mean the least important most point eliding?
He’s implying that identity is not a something that can be assigned to a group :3❤️
Seems like mental masturbation to me
@@ghostlack It does, Shakespeare phrased it like this:"To thine own self be true".
I’m not sure what that means. Anyway, I was just clarifying the original comment because you seemed confused. Whether the OP is right is beyond the scope of my comment.
14:46 And who, EXACTLY, is going to do this. And whom is going to bear this cost. And let's not forget the inevitable lawsuits in perpetuity.
For ONE POSITION.
Coleman is an idealistic young man who has lived a largely sheltered, and privileged, life. Not to say that he hasn't had struggles but the tuition of the day school he attended has an annual tuition greater than the median income, for an individual, in the US.
I certainly hope that one day a world that conforms to his vision becomes our reality, one day, but until then I feel he allows that idealistic vision to cloud his perception of the day to day life of the marginalized in the United States. I don't think there is any malice in this, I just think he is a someone who wishes we were a lot closer to the world he envisions, and so mistaken puts us further down that path.
Even if he has lived a sheltered life, you stating it has got nothing to do with argument. Maybe you should contend with his actual points and not commit your origin/genetic fallacy.
In fact it's quite the opposite in my experience. It is precisely the white, educated and rich who are the biggest adherents and advocated of race reductionism in politics.
All his research is completely independent of his lived experience. For example, on affirmative action. Indeed, I believe his ideas are the actual reality. The only way to eliminate racism is to not have policies that involve race.
@@redmatrixxI agree
Damn the vid just dropped, people have early access?
1.25 speed makes it easier to listen to, I think
Great interview. I hope Hughes gets as much air time as possible.
Didn’t realize Alex was this dense. This is like watching Joe Rogan right before the Spotify deal.
I was really unsure about what he was saying, but I enjoyed hearing him walk through it calmly, up until he mentioned meritocracy...
Meritocracy is a myth.
Call everything you disagree with a myth, never lose an argument again. But never get any closer to truth. Congrats winner, winning in the shadows.
@danw5760 lol did you have any arguments or do you just believe in every ideal the rich present you with? Meritocracy is literally a myth. People don't get what they deserve based on intelligence or productivity. They get what they are lucky enough to get from people who like them enough and aren't too bigoted to exclude them. People get an appartment because the landlord thinks they deserve it, not because they literally worked for it. Money sometimes acts as a great equalizer, until you realize the people making money are also not selected based on merit but based on simply being born to rich parents, having sucked up to a rich benefactor, having had enough to make your own investments, being lucky enough to have a decent job, and so on.
Look, you clearly have nothing useful to say, you only replied because you believe deeply that you deserve good and others deserve bad, just like all the people who bought into competitiveness and social structures which do not exist at all.
Someone disagreeing with you is an opportunity to look deeper, not to reply some strawman bullshit. You can do better. I looked deeper before realizing it was a myth. Did you? Or are you just having a knee-jerk "I must defend my fake cultural standard" moment?
@@Nathouuuutheone you didn't present any argument yourself originally did you? Double standards already appearing. The arguments you later presented are totally unconvincing and laced with unfounded personal attacks. It is of course the case that aspects of success are attributable to factors that people have no control over, such as family, wealth, looks, height. But your suggestion that the individual can play no role in their fate is very extreme. Let's take a very basic thing, timekeeping, anyone of average IQ can turn up on time, clearly they are more likely to succeed than someone who doesn't. Have we not clearly identified at least one area where success is under the control of the individual?
@danw5760 so I make a short reply to a video and I'm supposed to detail my arguments like a pro, but someone replying directly to ME shouldn't put any effort into it? And I'M the one with a double standard?
Also, you double up on your strawman. "The individual can play no role in their fate" is such an idiotic misrepresentation of what I said. Move the fuck on, I am not wasting more time on your nonsense. You came here to pick a fight without any respect or rigor. It's shameful. Grow up.
This is a common misconception people have about the term.
"Meritocracy" means selecting the best person for the thing. EG, if you are trying to hire people for a moving company, having a test to see which one of them can lift the most makes it a meritocratic process.
It does not mean that individuals are rewarded fairly for their abilities, or that people have equal access to things that will make them better, or anything else you said in the second comment. (Not that those things don't matter, they just aren't part of meritocratic systems).
Easily enough answered, as put .. if a little controversial.
1) For the Enlightenment Philosophy of 'man',
2) In the evolutionary theories of science-based eugenics,
3) With the politically corrected expressions of a political activist victimology.
The end, like the origin, and its sustenance, is of materialist equation value-theory. A quantum (how much) component of some Marxian elements of Darwinian progress, i.e. in commerce, rather than a quantum (how many) expression of Mathusian use of Lamarcian effort, e.g. via economy. Its antithesis is the qualis - qualitas = quality of 'being' .. nature, condition, property, state (and the virtue or vice thereof, which interests no one very much today, as it is too spiritual or rather metaphysical).
If 'man' is taken as a quantifiably different kind of ape, then the sums add up to make advanced tool-making is higher (in evolutionary progress) than regressive hide-chewing or nest-building, etc. And if this quantifiable difference is noted between human races - Anglo-Saxons and Celts, Greeks and Barbarians, Sapiens and Neanderthalis ('us' and 'them') - then the less advanced (or advanceable) race will be at an evolutionary disadvantage .. and the advanced advantage-holders will have only minimal evolutionary need to preserve the less advantaged (be they Noble Savage or dirt poor labourer in quality of life, they are an excess population).
Today's Race Theory, being ostensibly about (imposing) equivalent equity in the summation of useful population against excess population, quantitatively, must therefore turn both the Malthusian (effort-improvement) and Marxian (State-controlled) progressive ideologies on their heads .. without altering the activist endeavour or the capitalisation of interest (in order to achieve virtue-signalling 'equality' measured in 'quantifiable' terms, within the realm of ever-changing goal posts as a 'norm').
Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
God bless. ;o)
'The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.' Chesterton, Orthodoxy.
Coleman's book is excellent. HIGHLY recommended for those who want to reflect on this issue more deeply. THANK YOU, Alex and Coleman, for a very illuminating and memorable discussion!
He's just copied Jared Taylor but you validate this because it comes from a non-white mouth
As issues about race became more prominent in discourse, that discourse more deranged, and my awareness of it all increased, I have observed an incredible change in my feelings towards the color of everyone’s skin.
Here’s the experience I had before:
I think it’s true to say I am a very cognitive or cerebral person and was from a young age. I distinctly remember the attitude towards race I developed in my first years of primary school. It is very much of a piece with the color-blindness Colman advocates. I could see different skin, of course. And I knew it mattered to some people. That therefore, people of various colors would probabilistically be more subjected to language/feelings about the color of their skin. And yet, it made total sense to me that I was really and truly in the presence of another human being, ultimately. That there was no reason at all to doubt that the principled possibilities of character and competence available to any one person were also available to any other. Now, I may still have harbored some amount of unconscious bias…but this attitude combined with another attitude towards my own beliefs really seemed to safeguard me from racism (to a degree that Colman suggests is possible). I had seen that unconscious bias was possible and that the best I might be able to hope for was to treat people in a reasoned and principled way, not a reactive one. The second attitude regarding beliefs was simply that any uncertainty at all I had (or rather anything shy of absolute certainty borne of logical soundness “all the way down”) had to be acknowledged by myself inwardly. In other words, no beliefs came for free. I could think things might be true, but I simply could not allow myself to believe I knew things to be true (unless the view was truly unassailable, with the biggest “no matter what” conceivable).
My experience changed:
In recent years though, I began to feel myself react in a new way to the colors of people’s skin (even and especially people of my own “race,” white people). At first, I had no real idea as to what was happening in myself. Perhaps a little over a year ago, a possible explanation occurred to me that resonated deeply (though may still be at least somewhat inaccurate or incomplete): I felt that my skin color mattered to others…and that they would assume theirs mattered to me… Painfully ironically, in some strange and backwards way, theirs DID ”matter” to me, but only because: (1) I viscerally anticipated mine to matter to them in some way associated with theirs and (2) I perceived that the other person would likely take for granted that theirs mattered to me, perhaps especially because of my skin color. Furthermore, I knew they might feel the same way I did…a problem imagined would play out as though real. All because of unhelpful discourse on the topic.
I could not help but feel, I still cannot help but feel, that my attitude before was better for me and for others. And perhaps unsurprisingly, we all seem worse off overall for the obsession so many have with race.
Alex you are killing it lately! 👏 Really enjoying your content!
2:39 Spreads is the correct term because it is exactly like contagion.
Back in the day, papers were distributed. And ALL news departments, print radioand TV subscribed to "wire services". Literally, wires. Telephone wires that replaced the tele-GRAPH wires they qould share with telegrams.
Not a pro, but I guess you could get more detail.
But if that story in Topeka found something out later, say after the investigation into the shooting, and something iffy was found, they would write another story and if Editor that it was worth expense, might submit it up to whichever service they subscribed. If they had several, they probably had some time thing where one service paid to be first or something.
This is how the FAX (facsimile) machine came to be, BTW. Was how they passed photos along the wire. And was outrageous to do.
COLOR even more so, to send or transmit.
Then it would show up in NJ and really worldwide.
If they considered story worth their time it go out.
Then EVERYONE could debate the WHOLE STORY.
Or it was SUPPOSED to be. But OWNERS of media CONTROLLED whatever they owned. Including wire services.
Where saying BURY the story comes from.
If they thought it needed hearing, maybe, it would get buried on the classifieds section when they had a blank spot to fill.
My takeaways from Coleman’s thoughts on racism:
1. Racism is overstated
2. The most worrying forms of racism are now coming from the left.
3. It’s better to just persuade people not to be racist than apply any legislation.
4. Why can’t we just all get along?
I didn’t learn a thing from this guy. He spouts a series of platitudes about how race should be unimportant to how we treat others, but offers no ideas about how we actually achieve this. His main problem is with people who are too vocal about discrimination in areas he believes are overstated. I laughed when he said white supremacy is not a major risk, and the US is 6 months away from likely electing one as president.
You’re a clown. White supremacy is overstated and it’s stupid to think Trump is a white supremacist. He’s just a massive narcissist
This is why instead of post-Marxism, I like pre-Marxism, aka - good ole Hegelian synergy. Marx understood economics but Hegel sought to understand people.
Try to judge people individually...
If a person judges groups it says more about them than the group.
He’s arguing against a straw man. CRT and ‘wokeness’ are not calling for judging people by race. They’re calling for noticing trends in outcomes and for acknowledging the very recent past that has repercussions in present day.
You can judge people individually and judge groups as groups. There isn't a conflict there. The problem is when people's judgements about groups supersede their judgements about individuals, rather than the other way around.
@@ChrisFineganTunes That's the excuse they give. In practice they are just judging by race as reflected in the policies that they put forward.
@@256shadesofgrey nope. What happens is that people with a genuine interest in understanding the remaining effects of widespread overt oppression in recent history will teach the truth about it. This in turn makes some white people feel like they’re being directly attacked rather than simply being educated on reality. They then argue that they’re being directly labelled as oppressors when that isn’t actually the argument of these critiques.
The actual argument is that there are still subtle remnants of historical racism in the way society is organised that are often not directly remedied by things like legislation and other rules. It involves trying to understand the ways on which we are all subtly biased. And some people *really* don’t like to even entertain the idea that they’re not perfectly objective individuals. Those people, ironically, misrepresent things like CRT both in purpose and in impact, pretending that little white children in kindergarten are being actively taught to hate themselves.
@@ChrisFineganTunes This isn't accurate. California recently tried to repeal a law requiring race-neutrality in certain hiring practices so that they could hire based on race to correct for alleged racism.
Also, he was almost banned from giving a talk at TED on this topic because an employee organization said that colorblindness promotes white supremacy. Be aware of "reverse nutpicking" whenever you're trying to say a certain group is "just" trying to do this-reasonable-thing. Odds are your projecting your own political opinions into something and haven't seen the evidence that the other person is arguing against.
I strongly disagree with Hughes' assessment of the responses to his work, and of Alex's framing of the question. The actual answer is that the left has purposefully socially isolated themselves with concepts like deplatforming. Even listening to disagreeable opinions is a social faux pas. There are almost all positive comments on his work because those that disagree will never engage with him at all.
His concept of "elites" doesn't hold water at all in my opinion, as there is very obviously a huge base of normal people who also think this way. Even his example of the term latinx doesn't quite work. Users of that term are in a bubble, but not the one Hughes describes. Using x/@/e is a phenomena in latin american countries called lenguaje inclusivo that has to do with the LGBT movements in those countries. The use of latinx, while done in a naive way, is an attempted bridge to a multinational LGBT movement, which also does have real grassroots support (if somewhat fringe). This is important because the point of the term is not to reach or connect with "hispanic" voters at all, but specifically with LGBT spanish speakers. This might still be disagreeable to some, but the bubble is not with 'elites', it's a large movement.
Bro of course we shouldnt judge people on the basis of race. But its happening.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nnsure, but what I have experienced is that people working together, by no choice of their own, get to know each other and realize how alike we are. In the 70s, I knew a white kid who got a full scholarship to Johnson and Wales college, but when he arrived for orientation and saw black people for the first time, he refused to go. If he had been working with them earlier in life, he may not have forfeited his opportunity. I realize this is an extreme example, but it happened. Today, I don't know if that would happen.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn a person cannot help what they think but they can help what they think about that thought.
@@waitaminute2015 people are not afraid of different unless they are told to be so.
"If your white great-great grandfather
KILLED my great-great grandfather
And your white great grandfather
SOLD my great grandfather
And your white grandfather
R***D my grandmother
And your father stole, cheated, lied and ROBBED my father
What kind of fool would I have to be to say
“Come, my friend!” " - Sista Souljah
Sure is. I feel bad for all the white people getting caught up in this BS
I'll be honest, having an opinion on how "one sided" the censorship was on Twitter before Elon and having no opinion on whether or not the platform has gotten overwhelmingly worse since he took over is kind of suspicious, or at the very least a cop out.
As alex said, the twittersphere has become a deranged barrage of porn, fight vids, and other types of hyper click baity media. Quite obviously worse for anyone not really seeking out such content.
It would say twitter after Elon is much better. It´s great that it has evolved from being a one-side echochamber spewing misinformation to a cesspool spewing misinformation (and now also all other kinds of vile things)in all directions. Now the ratio of people taking it seriously has decreased dramatically, which is a net positive.
Definitely more financially beneficial to be a black contrarian and you stand out more. His analogies break down to nothingness when taken apart. They only sound good on the surface period.
Would you care to elaborate on why you think his points are bad?
He doesn't seem to consider the possibility that these racist institutions won't buy into his racially diverse policies precisely because they're racist. They don't see the problem with being racist because that keeps them on top, making the most money, and in a place of security. The system isn't broken for them, so why would they want to 'fix' it?
Quite the opposite, he qualifies all of his views. The fact that he does not feel obliged to adopt a given set of views by virtue of his race shows he is capable of free thought and it raises him above conditioned masses.
@@pizzaboy4463 Nonsense, he uses his race to benefit these talking points. Modern day uncle tom.
From what I'm hearing about his views is that we wouldn't live in a racist world of people just stopped being racist. Which doesn't seem to engage with the echoes and scars that racists have placed upon our societal institutions. He dismissed the people who have spent significant portions of their career studying whilst simultaneously justifying his conclusions by the degree of agreement he gets from laypeople who haven't studied history or anthropology as if bandwagon theory carries more weight than in depth study. He carries himself well and puts on a great display of erudidity, but doesn't seem to grasp the consequences derived from people in power who care more for their personal prestige than the welfare of their fellow humans.@@pizzaboy4463
CRT obviates the need for any thought, word or act of racism as proof of their presumed verdict. All they need is their preferred race measuring less favorably than another. Regardless of the cause: they declare their favored race to be victims of the other.
Then they would use real government enforced discrimination in response to their presumed discrimination; altering laws, policies and practices to favor their preferred race.
All for the stated purpose of forcibly making the measurements between races identical.
The operative question is whether you support using government force to implement racial discrimination.
All the rest is academic.
My answer is no.
Looking forward to this one
It is crazy to hear a black say, if it fails, it fails. Are you not aware of how bad things were? The equivalent of saying, "well we tried to peacefully negotiate with the British, i guess we'll just be colonists". Private companies are notoriously selfish, the people who create them want personal gain. The take is not rooted in reality
Communist is still a much dirtier term than woke, and identifying class categories is considered, at least in America, an entirely communist trope that exists wholly in defiance of the meritocratic values of the people. As far as I'm aware, people have tried making class distinctions since the rise of modernism in the 20th century, but it only got about as far as the distinction between blue collar and white collar which to the American populace still reduces down to an explicit choice one makes upon becoming an adult. No other relevant socioeconomic factors are inserted into their conception and the decision is made entirely within the narrative framework of free will.
I think determinism is probably an even dirtier word than communist. Jordan Peterson just interviewed Robert Sapolsky, famous for his research on neurobiology and behaviorism, while on a book tour for his new release titled "determined," and not once did they ever even speak about the conclusions of his research or engage in any dialogue involving the context of free will vs determinism. They didn't even say the word determinism throughout the entirety of their interview. Peterson knows his audience, and his audience is about as intellectually honest as it gets on the political American right. No doubt, he elected to prohibit that conversation from taking place on the grounds that his audience isn't capable of productively engaging with that discussion. If that doesn't tell you anything about the state of nuance, language, and honesty in our discussions here, then idk what else to say.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn True. I was shocked to hear even within workplaces how you have to treat your boss like they're a king and be all "Mr, soandso" instead of treating them like any other coworker that just have managing tasks (from Sweden btw)
Idk how he can claim that a journalist looking into a police shooting as presenting "More or less the facts of the story." That is simply untrue. In many cases they side with the cops or just repeat the police line even when that may not be true. Bodycam and recorders let us see what is happening. I mean what context makes kneeling on a mans neck for minutes appropriate anyway?
I am so fucking excited to see these two young up and coming thinkers have a conversation.
Same 😅
To be clear, in the case certain people are not aware of it, they are talking about UK and US society mainly, of which they only briefly mentioned doing that. In the Netherlands where I live, we have a very different situation. In this video, they also talk about universal things that thus apply to every country on the world, or at least most countries. I wanted to make these distinctions as an important nuance.
Btw, especially 27:25 - 27:57 minutes is an example that wouldn't apply to the Netherlands, a largely secular society where people lead a happy and meaningful life in general full of guidance. This video is, and I would say many of Alex's videos and those of other podcasters, is clearly from an American or British perspective.
This guy is has completely lost the plot
Have you ever reached out to David Bentley-Hart or someone similar to come on the show? I wish you would interact with serious theologians/Christian philosophers. I'm sick of Lane Craig being put up as the guy to defend the theist side. It's embarrassing
Here's a question: why are we focusing so miopically on the issue of name discrimination in resumes when talking about the broad topic of the utility of racial politics?
The irony is that this study doesn't even definitevly prove racism. The real test would be to show photographs of two people of two races with the same names. And see if the foreign name impacts the white applicant as much as another. I don't know of anyone that's hiring people with resumes that have photos 😅 Except maybe in Hollywood. Perhaps this study has been done. I'd be interested to know.
Another thing: Coleman's point about a foreigner's small business only hiring one race is crucial because it points out the fundamental hypocrisy many people engage in. Its only white dominated careers or industries that are ever criticized for this (that and Jewish dominated industries by another unsavory group). I see many people from Asia dominating the tech field and medicine in the United States. If they do too well, are we going to have to limit how many of them can be hired because it needs to be more fair?
I think the best way forward is to not imagine a fantasy scenario where a benign government can regulate racism out of culture and the workplace and instead we should apply ourselves to live by the "colorblind" ethic of treating everyone with the respect and dignity they deserve with no regard to their racial category. The more we teach our children to see people as more than their surface level traits, the less racism there will be and the less discrimination everyone will have to face.
It will never be gotten rid of. Like lying, stealing, arrogance, and foolishness will never be gotten rid of. Racism is a vice. It will emerge and submerge in all cultures in many different directions across time.
I think arguing for the government to try and legislate racism out of corporations is foolish. Because I don't agree that they will make the problem better. It'll just invent new problems. "No whites" hiring practices have sprung up from these organizations that were designed to end racial discrimination... Explain that contradiction. Harvard accepted fewer Asian students than merit would have compelled because of racially preferential enrollment practices.
Even with all that, if I play along and take the study to be as meaningful as Alex seems to think it is, and that it proves what he thinks it does (which is not certain at all), I still think this practice is a bad idea and will inevitably go wrong. Coleman briefly brought up the NBA. Let's take the Rap industry. It's predominantly black americans dominating that industry. The study would suggest that those men and women would have racially biased hiring practices... We see a disparity between the amount of black vs. white people we see in that field. Should those companies be forced to hire more Asian and white people? There are people who would want to do that. But it would in all likelihood not be applied this way ever because these racial policies tend to only ever be considered for people who progressives declare as "disadvantaged" in their meta politcal narrative.
Also, nobody likes a diversity hire 😅 to be one or to work with one. The worker would feel insecure in all likelihood and the coworkers would feel like the position wasn't properly earned. That's why blind hiring is a much better practice than forced quotas and check lists of necessary racial categories.
I don't think Coleman articulated himself very well in this conversation but I agree with his central point. I think Alex's miopic focus on this "name study" is a fairly flimsy foundation for the argument that we need our politics to be as obsessed with race as they are.
And thats to say nothing of the elephant in the room of the normalization of anti-white hatred, and the rise of far right reactionaries lashing back with some racist rhetoric. I think racializing politics is bad simply because it's the racists (on all sides) who get excited by that and want to see the government fix whatever their "race" problem is.
Love you Alex, but I do wish you'd try to see things a bit more from the POV of some of your less progressive guests with the same charity and curiosity that you treat your theist guests.
I may be the only one who gets this impression, but then again a may be one of the few of your regular viewers who is proudly not a progressive. I don't feel as though you truly have understood and repudiated political arguments, so much as you've rhetorically challenged them. Quite cleverly, but I don't think it's very substantive.
You should also invite Samuel Jared Taylor onto your podcast for views on race.
Good interview Alex couple points I think would should’ve pushed back on but I don’t begrudge you for not knowing every detail of anti discrimination US law would be good if you got someone on the other side of the spectrum to Coleman perhaps a Nathan J
Robinson or even a vaush
I wouldn't want Vaush in this space. Regardless of how anybody feels about him, I think his argumentation is just okay and there are less controversial and better qualified people to discuss these topics with. He's become such a relatively loaded figure in online spaces that it might do more harm than good to bring him on
@@stephenjohnson9745 I don't disagree a lot of people already head into any video with him with loaded biases that make any conversation with him no matter how uncontroversial what he says kinda fruitless why I was fairly apprehensive including him
doesn't help that he's also fairly supercilious in his cadence
I’d like to see the racial and political make up of those who support Coleman’s colorblind view. I’d bet money that it’s mostly white and/or black conservatives.
Nothing wrong with addressing the remaining legacies of the racist past, and acknowledging the race based bias (we pretend we do not have).
But it’s another to blame everything on it and ignore all other issues. Like Israel Palestine situation…apparently it’s anti-semantic now to criticize Israel.
It is also islamaphobic to suggest Israel has the right to kill terrorists
@@beyamothi very much doubt there were 30k terrorists in Palestine.
@@beyamoththe ANC were called terrorists. Your labels are trash.
@@Nick-o-timeANC went violent and accepted aid from the USSR during the Cold War, so of course it would be labeled as a terrorist organization. Its aims were noble and the civilians they killed in the crossfire were probably not intentional, so do they deserve the title of terrorists? Probably not.
But Hamas on the other hand, is a clear cut terrorist organization. They launched a terrorist attack on oct 7, murdering innocent men, women, children and babies, then kidnapped 200 people and shielded themselves in hospitals, homes and schools. Their stated goal is to eradicate Israel, and kill Jews / Israelis all over the world. That was their charter somewhere in the late 1980s, then they switched the word Jew to Zionist in their most recent 2017 charter but essentially their goals for eradication stayed the same. They were able to successfully launch a disinformation campaign that led to all these college kids and people like you to believe none of this happened or was justified.
Israel has to respond to murders and kidnappings, and that’s what they did. There’s innocent collateral on both sides, but Hamas’ intentions are clear in their own words.
@@Nick-o-time Hamas are terrorists. Read their 2017 charter.
ANC was labeled terrorists due to paranoia by the US since it was the middle of the Cold War and ANC went violent with their car bombings and what not and accepted aid from the USSR. Not justified but historical context matters