Hello, everyone. Now, before we get started with the video today, I'm gonna have to include a brief note
about the concept of guilt by association. Now, let's say for instance I work in an office, and a
colleague of mine is photographed kicking a cat, say. Now, it would be unfair to also
declare me guilty of that crime, simply for being associated in an
unrelated way with the perpetrator. However, let's say an associate of
mine is photographed kicking a cat, only this time we're associated because
he attends my cat kicking course where I teach the most effective ways to kick cats. That wouldn't merely be
guilt by association then, because the way in which I was associated with
him, would have a direct link to his actions. That's just something I think it's important
to make clear at the start here, and you'll hopefully see why this
was needed as we go on. Anyway,
Hello everyone! (again) This is a video about terms like "white supremacist",
"white nationalist", and "racist", and it's also a response to a video posted by Steven
Crowder on the 30th of April this year, entitled: "What is 'WHITE SUPREMACY'?" In that video, Steven is worried
over an apparent uncertainty over who counts as a white nationalist,
or white supremacist, or racist. And he's furthermore worried, that
this confusion will lead to people being banned from various social media sites,
merely by being accused of belonging to those groups. As always, I'd suggest you watch his video first,
so you can be sure I'm not misrepresenting his views. But we'll also briefly talk through Steven's argument here,
before we get into responding to specific sections of it. So ok, Steven opens his video with a flash forward
plea to various social media tech CEO's, asking them to define the terms "white
supremacy" and "white nationalism", and asks what should count as a
bannable offense on social media. Steven then says he's against various recent
white nationalist terror attacks... that's good... but then starts complaining about people politicizing the
murders, quote: "before the bodies are even cold". Which is always a silly thing to say, because
terror attacks are explicitly political by nature. You can't politicize them, they're already political. Anyway, Steven then complains about various
news shows in the United States calling President Trump a racist, and
then moves on to complain about journalists in the media apparently calling all
manner of people who disagree with them white supremacists or white nationalists, including
media figures like himself and Ben Shapiro. He says, that by the time we get to this "actual white
supremacist", the term has lost all meaning. Now, you might note here, that corporate
news journalists calling the President racist have nothing at all to do with suspected white
supremacists being banned from social media websites. To the uninitiated, this leap of logic
will seem rather confusing, but the actual reason for why Steven can do this, is that the point of his show is to
argue against what he calls "the left". Which, for him, includes not just
actual leftists, but also liberals. (Now, he's not able to distinguish between
those two groups, obviously.) The Democratic Party establishment are also called "the
left", despite being rather strongly disliked by the left, and also, tech CEO's who run huge private
corporations are also, apparently, "the left". It's a ridiculous "us versus them"
oversimplification basically. If you can convince your audience that all
these disparate groups count as "the left" then manufacturing leftist hypocrisy is easy. The vast majority of the content on Steven's channel
is centered around criticizing these ""leftists"". Even if the subject in question is a
white nationalist mass murder. "Top 5 Dumbest Leftist Reactions
to Synagogue Shooting" is a real headline on their website, believe it or not. Anyway, back to the video in question. Steven then makes various comparative statements
about the abilities of various races of people, and asks if saying those statements makes
him a racist or a white supremacist. He then says that leftists are calling everything
a white supremacist dog whistle, using clips of Donald Trump talking about choking and being accused of referencing the murder of
Eric Garner, which happened five years ago. Steven doesn't pick a more recent or relevant example
of a racist dogwhistle, for some reason. You can't use this one anymore, I guess... Steven then gives various comparative statements
about different countries and societies, asking if saying those statements makes
him a racist or a white supremacist. Now, if you noticed that this was the exact same
point as the IQ thing earlier in the video, you're correct, it's not a very
well structured argument, this. Then he waffles about how great Western civilization
is for a while, before closing out by saying that if social media platforms are gonna
ban people for being white supremacists, then they have to define what white supremacy is. The end. Right, so what do we think about this video? Why was it made? Well, the description to the video says "Steven Crowder thorougly dissects
media's use (and misuse) of the terms 'white supremacy' and 'white nationalism',
separating fact from liberal fiction." But he doesn't thoroughly dissect anything, of course. Once you strip out the regrettable celebrity impressions and complaining about irrelevant
criticisms of Donald Trump, nearly all Steven says, with regards to white
nationalism and white supremacy, is "I don't know what they mean.
Can somebody please help me?" I say "nearly" because, to be charitable to
Steven, his one actual point appears to be "There is some uncertainty about who is and isn't a
white nationalist, white supremacist, racist, or whatever. And that uncertainty is the fault of the leftist hivemind
for overusing those terms, where they don't apply." So Steven wants someone on the left
to tell him what those terms mean. So that's what we're gonna do today. We're gonna
help Steven out and answer his question. So we'll start with the basic definitions
of the terms he's confused about. A white supremacist is someone who
believes that white people are superior to people of other races, and
should be in control of them. A white nationalist is an advocate
for enforced racial segregation with the aim of creating an ethnically white state. And a racist is someone who believes that a particular
race is inherently superior to others. Now, there's obviously a lot of
crossover between those terms, but at least in dictionary definition form here,
they aren't particularly confusing so far. Now, I'd like to go off on a little
tangent here, if you'll let me. Er... well, you know, either way, you can't stop me. So, I'm not here to debate whether any of these terms
represent acceptable political positions. They don't. Here in the free marketplace of ideas, I will debate absolutely any argument or position, so long as it's debatable. For instance, I won't debate whether 2+2=5 with you, not because I can't prove it doesn't,
but because there's no point. It's a waste of time. You know, take someone who thinks that
2+2=5, and will argue the point. I don't want to convince them that they're wrong. I don't want them on my side. You know, if they looked at the evidence
and came to that conclusion, who knows what else they think? They're embarrassing. Likewise with questions of equal rights. Whether or not people deserve equal human rights is a question with a right and a wrong answer
as clear-cut as the previous example. If you believe, for instance, that white people
are inherently superior to other races, and deserve to be treated preferentially
by society as a result of that, you are wrong. There's nothing to be debated there. Not because I can't explain why you're
wrong, but because as things stand, you're incapable of understanding why you're wrong. Anyway, tangent over. Now as we've seen, Steven attributes
the supposed ambiguity surrounding terms like "white supremacist",
"white nationalist", and so on to leftist and/or liberal overuse of the terms. But I'd like to offer an alternative explanation, something
that Steven never considers in his video, and it's this: Sometimes people lie. Now, that might sound shocking and
unbelievable, but stick with me. Take this "actual" white supremacist,
who Steven calls a white supremacist. Now, is this really how obvious we need people to be
before we'll call them a white supremacist? You know, you have to be at a white supremacist rally,
proudly showing off a swastika tattoo. Because here's the thing: there could be people out there who have some or all
of the same political opinions as this man, but who are savvy enough to know it's a
bad idea to get a big swastika tattoo. Let's pretend, for the purposes of
argument, that such people exist. Actually, we don't need to pretend that. Let's say you're Steven Crowder, ...apologies... and you need a photograph of an actual
white supremacist for your Internet video. So what do you do? You go to Google Images, you type in "actual white supremacist",
and there he is there. Now, this photograph is of a man at the Charlottesville
Unite the Right rally, and it's from a website that says: "9% of Americans think it's OK to hold
white supremacist or neo-Nazi views." "A Washington Post-ABC News poll
found that 9% of Americans believe holding white supremacist
or neo-Nazi views is acceptable. A majority of Americans, regardless of party, think it's
unacceptable to hold such views: 83% overall." So that's good. Most confusing to me here, though,
is if we click through to the poll, the 8% of people who apparently have
no opinion of neo-Nazi views at all. What's going on with them? Just sort of ambivalent, I guess,
about the whole Nazism thing. Now, even if we assume that this study was wildly
off and 9% is a huge overestimation, if even 1% of the US population thought that
holding neo-Nazi views was acceptable, that'd be more than 3 million people. Trust me, they are out there. You see, people who go to far-right rallies and
wave swastika flags and do Hitler salutes - we can call them *open* white supremacists,
nationalists, racists, and whatever. But what we also have to be concerned about
are people who agree with this man, who themselves are white supremacists,
and nationalists, and racists and so on, but who *say* that they aren't. Now, there are some people in
the right-wing media sphere who *are* open white nationalists or supremacists. But usually, they don't get all that much of an audience,
because those ideas phrased as clearly as that, mean you're very likely to eventually either get fired
or banned off whatever sites you're using. Much more common than them
are closeted white nationalists, who hide behind euphemisms for their actual beliefs. They might say, you know, "I'm not a
white nationalist, I'm an identitarian", "I'm not a racist, I'm a race realist", and so on. They'll say they disavow Nazism and white supremacy, but they're saying that for branding reasons,
rather than actual ideological disagreements. They do support white nationalism, but they
understand that saying so would damage their cause. So to advance white nationalism,
they have to first pretend to disavow it. And then separate from that group, there are some pure
shameless grifters, with no real opinions of their own, but who have worked out that there's a lot of money
and attention to be had in pandering to racists. And now, what's the difference between
all these groups of people? The "real" white nationalists, the closeted
white nationalists, and the panderers? Well functionally, as far as I'm concerned - nothing. They're all spreading the same propaganda. It doesn't matter what they call it,
or their reason for doing it. If you associate with and support
racists and parrot their opinions, you're a racist, regardless of if
you say or even think you are. Now, does thinking this mean I'll sometimes
label someone a white nationalist or racist or whatever who claims not to be one? Sure. Do I care about that? Not really. You know, in my opinion, the burden of proof is on
them to act less like a white nationalist. And for any fans of Steven Crowder who might be
watching, who think I'm being unfair here, consider the following clip from another of his videos. [Crowder:] So they don't believe in the First Amendment. Whereas white nationalists, when
we address the Constitution, don't believe that all people were created equal. If you look at the Declaration of|
Independence, that's right in there. They don't believe that. [Taylor:] They all agree on one thing:
equality is a dangerous myth. The alt-right is united in rejecting the
current dogma that all races are equal. [Crowder:] Now I know people say he's
alt-right - he's a white nationalist. [Shaun:] So who is this guy, who Steven
called alt-right and a white nationalist? Well, that's Jared Taylor, editor of the white
supremacist magazine "American Renaissance". Jared Taylor IS a white supremacist,
and white nationalist, and racist. And Steven Crowder was correct
to identify him as such. However, "Taylor has been described as a white
nationalist, white supremacist, and racist by civil rights groups, news media, academics
studying racism in the US, and others." Many sources. "Taylor has strenuously rejected being
called a racist, and maintains that he is instead a 'racialist,
who believes in race realism'." That's a good one. "He's also said that he's not a white supremacist,
describing himself as a 'white advocate', and contends that his views on nationality
and race are 'moderate, commonsensical, 'and fully consistent with the views of most of the
great statesmen and presidents of America's past.'" Yeah, mainly the ones who owned
slaves, I think you'll find. Well, what's my point here? Well, Steven
Crowder clearly has no objections calling a racist a racist when he
believes the term to be accurate, even if they themselves would prefer
the term "racialist" or whatever else. He feels entitled to make that judgment call there, and that's the same judgment call he's
criticizing those on the left for making. Now given that Steven, in his video,
complains about people calling him a white supremacist or nationalist or whatever, let's
take a look at some possible reasons that might be. And we'll stick with Jared Taylor here for a second. [Molyneux:] So, we have on the line, and I guess for
those of you video-based, on the screen, Jared Taylor. Now, Jared Taylor is the edior of American Renaissance, the president of the New Century Foundation,
and the author of many books on race relations. And we're gonna put links to those
below, I highly recommend them, it's very data-driven, not ideological,
very fact-based, and very eye opening. You know, it's sort of chilling, when you realize
the degree to which essential information for the improvement of race relations
is kept hidden from people. And, the New Century Foundation recently
released an updated version of, um, I guess you could call it a pamphlet, but a very
data-driven presentation on the color of crime, it's a report of differences in crime rates by race, an examination of questions
of bias in the justice system, and of course interracial crime statistics, so um... [Shaun:] So that clip was of Jared Taylor being featured
on Stefan Molyneux's Youtube channel, with Stefan sharing Taylor's work with his audience
and linking in the description to his various websites. Now, Stefan Molyneux is a white nationalist,
or at least a white nationalist sympathizer, coming out as such in a documentary about
a trip to Poland he made late last year. [Molyneux]: First of all, I've always
been skeptical of the ideas of white nationalism, of
identitarianism, and white identity. However, I am an empiricist, and
I could not help but notice that I could have peaceful, free, easy,
civilized, and safe discussions in what is essentially an all white country. I have spoken out against white nationalism, but I'm an empiricist! I'm listening! I'm listening to my experiences,
can't argue with the facts! [Shaun:] So that's pretty blatant, there. He does do the whole "of course, I've always been
very skeptical of white nationalism" routine, so he can back away from it later, if he's called out. It's a wordier version of "I'm not
a racist, BUT...", you know. He also calls himself an "empiricist", and
then offers only anecdotal evidence for now thinking that white nationalism's
good, which is pretty funny. So, why am I talking about Stefan Molyneux? Well, if we can't always trust what people
say when they tell us who they are, how *can* we tell who is a white
nationalist, or racist, or whatever else? Well, we can ask ourselves, what sorts of
things would we see a secret racist do? Well, how about: platform other racists and sell their
work to your audience to financially support them? And following on from that, Stefan Molyneux has been
a guest on Steven Crowder's show multiple times. And here's a clip of Molyneux, advertising a book
he wrote on Steven Crowder's YouTube channel. So, a note for YouTubers, here:
even if you totally disagree with someone, and were planning to completely destroy them in debate
with facts and logic, you don't need to do this. You know, have them on the show,
and let them advertise their merch. You can debate Stefan Molyneux's
opinions without once involving him. This is never necessary, unless your
goal is to support him financially. So anyway, Steven calls Taylor a white nationalist, but supports Stefan Molyneux
financially and shares his work, who then supports Taylor financially
and shares his work. The link from Steven Crowder to someone Steven
Crowder considers a white nationalist consists of one other white nationalist, there. Let's not draw any premature conclusions here,
though, let's be a little more thorough. So, okay, the next behavior we might
see a secret racist engage in is downplaying the danger of white
supremacy and white nationalism. You know, you could say "I disavow it, of course,
but it's not really that big of a deal, is it?" [Rubin:] What do you make of the
whole white supremacy thing? The idea that we even have to talk about
this stuff seems sort of ridiculous. I just don't think- yes, I think there are some white
supremacists, as there always have been. I don't think that there are Nazis running around, Nazis were a political party in Germany in the
1930s, they're not really running around now. [Southern:] Yeah, and like half the people
on sites like Stormfront are feds, like, it's a big joke online, if you go- I spent a lot of time, like, in tons of different
political communities on Facebook, just like reading it, and if you go into
any alt-right Facebook groups, the joke is always, if you post anything
super Nazi or anything, they're like "Oh, fed, are you a fed?" Right?
[Rubin:] Right. [Southern:] And they're like, no one does that in real life! No one runs around with Nazi tattoos
in real life, you don't see it. [Shaun:] That's Dave Rubin and Lauren Southern, there, asking where on Earth all the Nazis are, just a few months prior to the Unite
the Right rally at Charlottesville. You don't see people with swastika tattoos
running around anymore! Oh no, there they are, there,
and they killed someone. We don't know what we're talking about,
clearly, we were fatally incorrect. We apologize and quit, because
we're obviously incompetent. Now, that's my own fantasy, there, I should
make clear they didn't actually say that. So, how does this relate to
Steven Crowder's video? Well firstly, his own website goes in pretty hard on
the Unite the Right attendees and organizers. It here calls them the "Charlottesville supremacists," it calls Richard Spencer "an asshole and
an unapologetic white supremacist", and refers to his "smug little Nazi face." That article was shared by Steven Crowder on Twitter,
so we can assume he agrees with those statements. So okay, Steven Crowder has identified a Unite the
Right attendee as an actual white supremacist, and ran an article that called the
organizer of the event a smug Nazi. All good so far. Returning to Lauren Southern, however,
she would appear to disagree. [Rubin:] Then, what- well, you would agree that some of it exists, right, there's something there, somewhere - [Southern:] Yeah, even the Richard Spencers of the world, like they're mis- even them, they're kind of misrepresented as well, like Richard Spencer is not a white
supremacist, he is a white nationalist, he believes in a white ethnostate, he doesn't
believe in whites being superior, so... [Shaun:] So Richard Spencer is not
a white supremacist, apparently, he's a white nationalist, according
to Lauren Southern. However... [Spencer:] I don't identify as a white nationalist,
just to, you know, let that be known. History is often a zero sum game, history is often about
subordination and domination, and it's about patronage
and so on. And if we want to try to get away from that,
in order to be ideologically pure, like oh, every ethnicity will have its little state,
we're not gonna really go anywhere. [Shaun:] So why would Lauren Southern
lie about Richard Spencer's views? Well, because she's trying to downplay the
seriousness and danger of white supremacy, because that furthers her political goals. If more people believe there are
no more white supremacists, that's fewer people who could recognize
her as a white supremacist. You see, Lauren Southern pals around
with various "identitarian groups", most famously to interfere with migrant
rescue operations in the Mediterranean. She shared false information about Quebec
City mosque shooting on Twitter, incorrectly identifying the shooters as Syrian refugees
when it was actually a far-right white nationalist, she made a video popularizing the white supremacist
"Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, the same conspiracy theory that inspired
the Christchurch mosque shootings that killed more than 50 people in New Zealand. The shooter titled his manifesto
"The Great Replacement", even. And Lauren Southern is a frequent
guest on Steven Crowder's show. So again, we have someone who all but
calls themselves a white nationalist, who downplays the existence of
Nazis and white supremacists while sharing their conspiracy theories,
being supported by Steven Crowder. But again, let's not jump the gun here. We'll keep going. So this is Milo Yiannopoulos, a former Breitbart contributor, who was fired from
everything after he said child abuse was okay. Here he is, serenading a bunch of neo-Nazis in a bar,
including Richard Spencer throwing a Hitler salute. Now in 2017, a bunch of Breitbart emails were leaked, which included, among other things, a leak
of Milo's password for his email account, which was LongKnives1290. Now, that's a reference to both the Night of the Long
Knives, which was a Nazi purge carried out by Adolf Hitler, and the 1290 Edict of Explusion, a royal decree issued by
King Edward I of England, expelling all the Jews from his kingdom. Well, you know the punchline by now. Milo Yiannopoulos has appeared several
times on Steven Crowder's show. Moving on, this chap is Gavin McInnes,
founder of the far-right gang The Proud Boys. And this is an easy one. Here's a clip of
Gavin McInnes calling himself antisemitic, and sympathizing with Holocaust deniers. [McInnes:] I s- This is basically a brainwashing trip. I mean, I think the Jewish, the
Israeli government paid for this. And we had donors too, but I think
they were mostly Israelis that assume that we're going to [laughs]
listen to all this shit we get fed. And that is having the reverse effect on me. I'm becoming antisemitic. Like at the Holocaust museum. Or as I call it, the "Holocaust" museum. No, I'm just kidding. [chuckles] Yeah, like at one point the tour guide goes, "You know, and there are people who
think that this didn't happen." And I felt like- I felt myself defending
the, the... super far-right Nazis. Just because I was sick of being- so
much brainwashing, I felt like going "well... "They never said it didn't happen. What they're
saying is that it was much less than six million, and um... that they starved to death. They weren't
gassed. That they, uh... didn't have supplies." [Shaun:] Notice how Gavin downplays the
actual beliefs of Holocaust deniers there, because of course, there are people who
think the entire Holocaust was a hoax. Including Andrew Anglin from the white
supremacist website The Daily Stormer, who wrote about this clip, saying, "I completely,
100% endorse these statements. Obviously, I disagree with the 'Holocaust happened' part, but we can't really expect him not to say that
while he is literally still in Israel filming this. Everything else is totally and
completely on-point and awesome..." Which is not a sentence you want the Daily Stormer
to ever say about any of your opinions. Gavin McIness also wrote about Richard Spencer back in 2016, saying "I've known alt-right pioneer Richard Spencer
since he got me the job at this magazine, and even he, the head of the snake, comes across
as perfectly reasonable in conversation. He doesn't think nonwhites can be
included in a harmonious America... but... everything else on his plate is relatively civil." Gavin McIness has also provided
a platform to Jared Taylor. [Taylor:] The main researcher on
this is Edmund Rudenstein. He's a very well-known economist and researcher,
he did a really fantastic thorough job. "So -
[McIness:] "Sounds like a..." [mimes big nose] [Taylor, laughing:] What's this? [McIness:] That's my, uh... Jew finger thing. [Shaun:] And of course, Gavin McIness a frequent
contributor to Steven Crowder's show. Alright, next up we have Owen Benjamin,
who is a comedian, apparently. Now, Owen has been on Steven
Crowder's show multiple times, even filling in as host of the show
when Steven Crowder wasn't available. So you'd imagine, he's a pretty trusted person around
those parts if they let him in the driver's seat, right? Now, Owen Benjamin also does his own
Internet web streams on YouTube. And let's take a peek at one of those. [Benjamin:] But it wasn't gas chambers! It wasn't - extermination based on race! What if it literally was "work will set you free"? Work, motherfucker! And they died. That's infinitely more probable. If you're a dictator, right, why would you kill your slaves? Well, I have another artist that I'm a big fan of. Hitler. He was a great artist. He was also a great
writer. Mein Kampf and all his paintings - Really, what he was trying to do, is clean Germany. Clean it of the parasites, of the fleas. He was not - he did not hate Jews. He hated filth, and he was trying to clean up. [Shaun:] And I'm not sure there's
much I need to say about that. So, to Steven Crowder, I'll say this:
if you want people to not call you a racist, maybe stop inviting racists onto
your YouTube show that you do. And if you're confused about who is and is not a
white nationalist or white supremacist, maybe before whining about the left, you should ask the various guests who
come on your show to define those terms. Because if sympathizing with white nationalism, platforming racists, sharing white
supremacist propaganda, questioning the Holocaust, and
outright saying Hitler was good don't make you a racist or white supremacist, what does, man? A big swastika tattoo? That's - that's it, isn't it? It's just the big swastika tattoo. Now, I'm certain some Steven Crowder fans
will protest my last two examples there, Gavin McIness and Owen Benjamin, because they've quite recently
been in trouble with Blaze TV, the network that hosts Steven Crowder's show. So, if the network doesn't want to
work with those people anymore, surely that's them being disciplined for
their racist behavior, and all is well, right? However, Steven Crowder was apparently
worried about being made out to be some network stooge following Blaze TV orders, so he addressed both of these controversies publicly. [Crowder:] Listen, this is my club. We're funded by
you, the viewer mug. So let me tell ya, I had no idea about a lot of this stuff going on, okay? I've never worked for the Blaze.
I don't work for the Blaze. This is something that is separate, where we actually
allow you to get more value for your buck, in agreement with CRTV, I guess now the
Blaze, where you get more content. I didn't know about the Gavin
McIness situation until you did. And let me be really clear: Gavin
McIness has an open seat, an invitation to work on a permanent
basis here on this show, if he wants to. He knows it. And now,
by the way, also do his own show. And by the way, it has- I wanna make sure this is really
clear: Owen was never let go from this show. Owen could still write for this show, and
I love him. Owen's a brilliant writer. [Shaun:] So Steven Crowder is happy to keep
working with these people, apparently. Gavin McIness is still guesting on his show. So, y'know... make of that what you will. I'd like now to talk about Steven's
various comparative statements he makes throughout the video,
so let's have a listen to a couple. [Crowder:] Is believing that the United States, is believing
that America is superior to Mexico white supremacy? What if I were to say that white people, on average, have higher IQ scores than black people, on average? Is that white supremacy? [Shaun:] So then, did those statements what
Steven Crowder said make him a racist? Well, I've actually explained my
thoughts about such statements in a fairly old video of mine, but I'll
give the short answer here. It depends on the context in which
the statements were said. So let's take the statement "Black people, on average,
have lower IQ scores than white people." Now, I'm gonna say that again in two different contexts,
and we'll see if we can spot the difference. So, okay. 1) Black people, on average, have
lower IQ scores than white people, however, lacking equal access to
education and economic equality, this statement itself can tell us nothing
about any possible differences in cognitive ability inherent to black and white people. Without accounting for social influences,
this statement is practically useless. I could also go into the problems with
IQ as a measure of intelligence here, and especially the problems with
the book "The Bell Curve", which is the "study" mentioned in the
screenshot that Crowder shows. However, I have a whole video dedicated
to The Bell Curve in the works, and I don't wanna spoil it here, so I'll just say: It's rubbish. So, okay, let's say that phrase again,
but in the manner of a clueless racist. 2) I want to create a white ethnostate
and kick out all of the black people, because black people, on average,
have lower IQ scores than white people. You see, I said the same words,
Steven, but in a different context. Whether or not they're racist depends
on why you're saying them. So I suppose the pertinent question here
is, in what context did you say them? Well, they're in a video, the goal of
which is to create the impression that the terms "white nationalist" and "white
supremacist" have lost all their meaning, posted on the same channel that
features you doing things like this: [Crowder:] ...of China.
["Me so sorry!" in BG] [Chinese music] [Shaun:] So... yes, I deem this a pretty racist
context in which to say those statements. Running defense for racists is racist, platforming other racists on your show is racist, and... I shouldn't have to say this one, but dressing up as offensive racial stereotypes... is racist. Steven Crowder's a racist, basically. Now, to be fair, Crowder's show's primary purpose seems not to be any conscious attempt to
spread racist beliefs for their own sake. The show is more of a hastily constructed
anti-left stream of consciousness, made for what can be mockingly referred
to as "entertainment purposes". It turns out, though, that if you're in the
anti-left, pro-right entertainment game, there's just a lot of overlap with being a racist. And there's no difference functionally, so, you know, it doesn't really matter whether they
are consciously doing it or not. To paraphrase a famous quote here, don't believe people when they tell you who they are. Believe people when they show you who they are. Steven Crowder can disavow racism a million times, and it won't mean anything, if he keeps sharing his
platform with racists and white nationalists. All we can infer from that is that either he's a racist,
or a white nationalist, or a white supremacist... Thanks a lot for watching, folks. There is one question left I haven't
answered yet, however. Who should be banned by all
those evil lefty tech CEOs? Well, I happen to think that every white
nationalist, white supremacist, or racist should be banned by every website they ever use. Now, how can I defend thinking that? Well, it's because I believe in freedom of speech. The idea that you can have a social
media community in which everyone - - racists and racial minorities, homophobes and gay
people, transphobes and trans people - all freely discourse and speak their minds
equally, is a doomed liberal fantasy. If you let the KKK recruit on your website, black people understandably aren't gonna
trust you, and they'll not want to use it. If you signal to your user base that harassing
gay people doesn't violate your terms of service, gay people will not feel safe expressing
themselves on your platform. This is a much worse affront to free
speech than banning a few bigots is. We can't be tolerant of intolerance here.
We have to pick a side necessarily. Trying to keep everyone on board - which is the strategy
favored by capitalists corporations, obviously, as that's the scenario with the theoretical largest return,
even if it's unworkable in the long run - can only lead to that community eventually
being overrun by intolerant bigots. So the solution is fairly simple, really. Just ban them all. And if they don't like it... fuck 'em!
“Hello everyone”
warm feelings inside
I lost it at that.
Oof. The bit about 9% of people thinking white supremacist views are okay to have... and even 1% would be three million people. I knew these things individually and logically but the combined idea that literally tens of millions of people in the United States are white supremacists (or at least willing to support them)... Fucking yikes.
who's gonna post it to the crowder sub lmao
Jesus that "Chinese" skit near the end was fucking disgusting. Like that's beyond orientalism or any kind of nuance at all. Just need to have that clip ready whenever someone tries to say Crowder isn't racist.
Steven Crowder is really unlikable. Like REALLY unlikable. He stands for a ton of shit I’m against and he presents it in a really smug annoying way. I love videos like this taking him down and Shaun is awesome as always.
Oh hell yeah a The Bell Curve video, been hankering for more after the Reading The Right takedown a while back.
God I wish I could think and speak like Shaun. I feel like growing smarter just by listening to him.
I knew Crowder was a racist sack of shit but that Asian stereotype costume? What can I say but JESUS FUCKING CHRIST MAN?!