SIO93: Listener Voicemail!

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:28 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Serious Inquiries Only, this is episode 93, I'm your host Thomas Smith, and I'm excited today, you know, funny thing happened, I had a guest who I really hope I can get back, somebody I'm excited to talk to, not going to give it away, but somebody cancelled, and I could have scrounged around last minute for another guest, but then I thought, you know what, it has been too long since I've gone to the voicemail, and thought, you know, this is a perfect opportunity for the guest to be you guys. So I went to the voicemail. I had plenty of old ones that hadn't gotten to some new ones as well. And I was overwhelmed as I always am and just delighted at how intelligent my listeners are. So it's really fun to do this. And I hope you'll continue to leave voicemails when you feel so inclined to do so, because it's really fun and it allows me to talk about a number of different things, clarify things, reconsider things.

0:01:24 Thomas: You guys are great at making arguments and bringing things to light that I didn't realize. So I'm super excited. Let's get to the voicemail. And I think this is something I should do at least once a month, if not more. So please leave those voicemails. They're really fun. So let's get over to it.

0:01:41 Clip: It's time to check the voicemail, and of course if you'd like to leave a message, that's 916-750-4SIO. That's 916-750-4746. Let's check out this week's messages. Music

0:02:01 Voicemail: Hi Thomas, short and to the point, one of my favorite professors, my logic professor, oh gosh, 40 years ago, explained to me, or explained to the class, that emotions are the antenna of reason and rationality, and without those emotions you can neither reason nor behave rationally, and I thought you might want to explore that, well, just on your own, because it just puts the lie, the idea that that logic is the end all to all things. You have a great day. I deeply appreciate your work. Bye.

0:02:38 Thomas: Hey, caller. Thanks so much. Totally agree. I think that's a very interesting quote and not much to add, although I just want to bring up a couple of things. First off, one listener comment I got that I thought was really good was emotions aren't really the problem. It's having like the wrong emotion is the problem, and I fully acknowledge that that can totally be a problem. I think that there's a straw man out there, and it's unfortunately pretty common, which is something I faced in, of course, the wake of this Mythicist Milwaukee stuff, which is the, you know, the minute you get become emotional, you've somehow lost. I mean, that's clearly not true. Uh, and it, what's so frustrating is that there's a group of people and it seems like a pretty large and vocal group of people on the internet for whom that's true.

0:03:28 Thomas: And they'll use it against you to no end. I mean, once you become frustrated, once you become angry, then that's somehow a sign that you're wrong, but it's just not really true. I mean, when you think about, especially what's frustrating about it is you think, think about it logically speaking, like even, even trying to be Spocky and like they are allegedly trying to the idea that the minute I become angry about something, it means I'm wrong. Well, that doesn't follow at all. I think I've mentioned it, but what I've had to do online, I used to not have to block anybody. It was the longest time before I blocked anybody on Twitter. And I still have only blocked like one person, but throughout all this, I've used the mute button quite extensively. And I still maintain, and I forget if I mentioned this, but if someone disagrees with me, even if you're mad about it, if you disagree with me and you make a point, I will listen to you.

0:04:18 Thomas: I'm not going to mute you. I'm open to opposing arguments, and I'm open to angry opposing arguments. But if all you're there to do is to insult me, well, then there's no reason for me to read that. I mean, it doesn't do anything. And unfortunately, that was a heavy segment of the following of the people involved with Mythicist Milwaukee and some of the other YouTube channels. Most of them are just there to try to insult you and make you feel bad. And, and it's, it's weird. Cause I just don't know what that accomplishes. I don't know what that means. It's one thing if you're in the course of an argument and you get frustrated, like that's one thing, but if your goal is to just go find somebody and say really awful things on all their channels, all their videos and all, just to try, like, I don't know what that accomplish is even by their own definitions.

0:05:10 Thomas: It's really weird. And just as an example, one tweet I got the other day, which I didn't block or mute the person. I just was kind of bewildered. I got somebody who commented on the Mythicist Milwaukee conversation with me and Eli, and they said, first off, they thought Eli was me, but that's whatever, no big deal. They said, oh, I tried to listen to this until you, and then they were referring to Eli, got emotional at that part. It was so disingenuous and pathetic. And that wasn't really exactly an insult, so I didn't mute them. I didn't do any of that, but I was really just curious. I was like, how are you deciding that? I think I responded, why is someone getting emotional automatically pathetic to you and why would you think it's not genuine?

0:05:56 Thomas: And it's just so weird to try to get into the mindset of someone who thinks that what they heard Eli do on that podcast, which was become very, to me, compellingly and kind of heartbreakingly emotional over how awful that situation was in the room there. It's one thing if, again, if you want to disagree, okay, we can talk. But to think, to go so far the other way is to say that Eli was doing that as like some disingenuous ploy. Like, not only do you not agree with it, but you think that he must have been faking it or something. That's an unbelievable level of conspiracy theorist to me that that's what Eli would be doing. I mean, come on.

0:06:41 Thomas: So it's so interesting that people are so scared of emotions. And some of the people, again, I'm sorry, I'm having to deal with, hopefully you aren't, but if you're online at all, you're having to deal with them somewhat. They're so scared of emotion that those are the kinds of things that they think, that that was a disingenuous ploy on Eli's part. But anyway, thanks for the message. I think it largely stood on its own, but it reminded me of these other things. I want to mention them. Thank

0:07:07 Voicemail: Hey Thomas, it's Ollie Quiznos, uh, I just listened to your latest episode, and I just want to say I'm really sorry that you're getting all this hate now and messages, but when I listen to those messages, I genuinely believe that these people really hate themselves deep down, and, I'm not going to tell you don't let it get to you, because it's not helpful, like, oh, okay, like when you tell a depressed person, oh have you tried not being depressed?, hmm, I'd be cured. But try to keep in mind that, you know, you have a successful podcast empire and you have a beautiful family. I don't know. But I think writing them off as dumb is kind of not fair. I don't think that these people are dumb.

0:07:53 Voicemail: I think that they're misguided. And I don't think people like Carl can change, but I think maybe his followers can change. I think so. But, I mean, they're horrible people now, yes, and you're not going to change their their past, but I think you can redirect them through compassion and empathy. You know, I've heard stories of neo-Nazis, reformed neo-Nazis that have come over from that. You know, I don't think that they're hopeless. And I think that, you know, we could use all the people we can get. And, I think by just writing them off, it's not really getting us anywhere. You know, I think we need to be better than them. All right. Thanks. Have a nice day. Bye.

0:08:35 Thomas: Thanks so much, Ollie Quiznos. I appreciate the support. Much appreciated. I absolutely agree. It is a little frustrating. And not just for me. Actually, Jenica, one of my friends who recently started the podcast with her husband, Pat, called Real Life Beyond Faith, she did a post that if it weren't for the fact that I just did a Me Too podcast, I would do those all the time, by the way. And I mentioned at the time, just because I think it's so important to get out there, but she did a post about the number of, I just, you know, sexually explicit messages she receives. And so many women responded and, and echoed that and said, yeah, I can't believe this even, you Know, still within our movement. So despite all the me too stuff, everything that's getting out there. It's still a problem. And of course it is, but also on that thread were so many people saying, well, just that's what the block button is for.

0:09:27 Thomas: Just block them. And putting the onus, putting the responsibility and the burden on Jenica. And I don't think, you know, at the peak, I'm sure I was dealing with quite a lot of harassment, but it's still, it has subsided for the most part. And I don't think it compares to what a lot of women deal with online on a daily basis. But at any rate, not to compare burdens, but still, it felt similar where it's like, why are you putting the burden on this person?

Why are you putting the burden and on me and yes I have been muting these people and if it's only a few you know that's not a big deal but what people don't understand and what they don't seem some people don't seem to be able to grasp is the psychological impact of a massive dog pile of people telling you horrible things it's not fun and it doesn't I don't you know it's one thing if you think you can deal with it and if if you think you would be unaffected by it, congratulations, that's great, but maybe you just happen to be spectacular, you know, because for me, yes, it's true that I can mute people and I have had to do that and that's what I'm dealing with it and, you know, I am.

However, there's something psychological to the feeling of so many people hating you and And so many people just trying to make you feel bad. And even if, yes, I can mute them, it doesn't change the fact that I've had to see all of this. And I just wish the pressure were on more people to not be assholes online. That would be great. And similarly, to talk about Jenica's post, my friend Jenica post on Facebook about all the explicit messages she receives and the message.

0:11:14 Thomas: So many of them are just, hey, hey. Hey, just over and over. I laugh because it's so pathetic, but it must be incredibly annoying. And the idea that the burden is always on the person receiving the messages to ignore them. That's that's great. And ultimately, that's what she'll have to do. However, I'm so frustrated by the fact that we don't put more pressure on mainly men online to not be creeps and to not be assles. We really seem to have a boys will be boys attitude with people online. Trolls will be trolls, and you know it's it's unacceptable, but anyway, there's also something to what Ollie said about, uh, trying to convince people, trying to be better than people, because, and I, frankly, I'm starting to feel that way myself a little bit too, and it doesn't mean I always embody everything I want to be. I mean, you know, I, I certainly flawed, I've certainly gotten emotional in the midst of this, uh, this, you know, harassment and this, all this stuff that I'm trying not to to talk too much about anymore, but I've gotten frustrated.

Uh, you know, I've lost my cool a couple of times, and really it has been a couple of time, like, you know, two times or three times at most, but they've been very, uh, people capitalize on it. You know, people online capitalize on it.

And I regret giving people the opportunity to capitalize on it, but I also am starting to agree with what Ali has said in this voicemail here, which is, you know, ultimately somebody is going to have to change hearts and minds at some point, you know?

0:12:50 Thomas: Because I've said it a million times and I still believe it. It's great when it's only 38% of Americans who are supporting Trump. And now, by the way, the same kind of people are supporting Roy Moore, child molester extraordinaire. They are supporting him because it's a liberal conspiracy that he, you now, had sex with underage girls and stuff when he was in a position of power. That's all, according to them, just it triggers the libtards to support somebody who very clearly violated the statute of limitations. But what happens when that percentage rises? I've said it. I hope it won't happen. I don't think it will happen. Some part of me thinks that elections now, in some ways, it's almost this counter backlash thing, you know, because That last Tuesday, almost a week ago now, was so good for Democrats, and I just have to wonder where all that energy was in 2016.

0:13:46 Thomas: I know there's complicated answers to that, but then I start to wonder, is it going to just be backlash and counter-backlash? Is that all it's going to be? Is it not going to be issues that ever carry the day? I think I already know the answer, as I said. The answer is going to be no, because in 2010, we got a gigantic backlash after two measly years of Democrats being in power. And they might have, I think Democrats came in power in 2006, but still two or four measly Years of congressional democratic power after just a disaster that was Republicans in the Iraq war and the tax cuts and all that stuff. It was so quick to turn around. And I just wonder, are we destined for that forever? Once again, I'm raising questions that don't have a good answer, but I agree with Ollie with your message.

0:14:32 Thomas: Thanks for, for it. And thanks for the support. And I think I am, you know, I'm, I've definitely healed enough from all this nonsense that I, I think I'm back into the mood of really wanting to try to reach people and I'm exploring how I might do that. But I also, you Know, I want to keep my show going, keep being interesting, keep, keep being entertaining and thought provoking to people who already aren't horrible. But in, in some respects, I think what Eli does is really good, uh, where he will go on these YouTube channels, even though a lot of these people are, you know, pretty terrible. In my opinion, he goes on their channels to at least try to reach the marginal people in their audience who maybe are, you know might agree with us if they're presented with the right arguments. And that I think can be a very valuable thing.

0:15:18 Thomas: And it's something I might try to do in the future. I did it with on Baring's channel and I got a lot of, you'll hear a voicemail that's from a Baring viewer. I don't know how convincible they are, but you'll hear it. So, we'll move on. Thanks for the call, Ollie.

0:15:32 Voicemail: How's it going, Thomas? Uh, I don't watch your podcasts for you, uh, but I'm responding to a question you stated to Baring. I'm also not a fan.

0:15:49 Voicemail: Equality in the United States of America. My personal opinion, I've thought this before if I've never met anybody, the King tapes were incorrect in that black people had been targets, and I think that was, uh...

0:16:18 Thomas: So speak of the devil, this is someone who, I don't know if they're reachable and they don't listen to the show and they said they wouldn't be listening, but they wanted to try to answer this question that I posed and it's something I tried to pose to Carl and I posed to others is, when do we reach equality? Because in their minds, we did. You know, it's all, once once legally, you know, everything was equal, then all of a sudden is equal. But but it's funny because they won't say it was right after the ink was dry on the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act. They won't tell you it was write then. But then curiously, they never really want to pick a time when we reached equality. And the question is absurd because we haven't reached equality, but but I at least respect this caller for trying to give an answer. Yeah, 1992, apparently 1990, you have something after that.

0:17:06 Thomas: When, by the way, I'm just looking at some statistics here, when the black unemployment was 14% and white unemployment was around 6%, when black incarceration was massively higher than white incarceration, you know, and again, maybe I can start now in terms of trying not to just burn bridges, but if you happen to hear this caller, it's pretty ridiculous to think that that was when equality happened. I would really ask you what metrics you would use to measure inequality. Because again, if you're going to say it was whatever was the letter of the law, then why aren't you saying it was right after the Civil Rights Act? Why wasn't that when equality was reached? Or would you acknowledge that there's inequality that's legal?

0:17:52 Thomas: Because that really is the key. There's inequality, massive inequality, that is fully legal in our country, and there's possibly not even any way to fix that. It's entirely possible that we can't write enough laws and enforce enough laws in the right ways to ever make things fully equal because there's prejudice in our systems and there are ways to get around it. Right now, I'm in the middle of a book called The Color of Law, a Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. It's by Richard Rothstein, and it's a book I came across because Ta-Nehisi Coates referenced it in one of his pieces. And it's a history of housing segregation. There are just so many different ways that segregation has happened, that inequality has been systematic and has been inflicted.

0:18:42 Thomas: And honestly, I'm struck by how little incentive there is for some people to learn about it. Because, you know, it really makes sense. These status quo warriors, as I think is the best name for them, they have every incentive in the world to want to ignore inequality, to want to pretend that it doesn't exist, because it's just the incentives. I mean, if you are just a white guy in this country, it would be fantastic, the most convenient thing to believe is that there's no such thing as inequality anymore and that other races are just complaining and you're actually getting screwed because you're white and no one likes white people anymore, all this stuff, like that's what's the most self-serving thing to believe, it's sort of the path of least resistance I think, and the path of more resistance is to actually learn how these systems have been in place for a long time and they've had a profound effect.

0:19:38 Thomas: And some of them, by the way, are not that old. Some of them are very recent. Some of the ways that we've enforced inequality on this society, some of it are very recent, but some of them do date back and they follow a path of, you know, first outright bigotry, then semi more, you know, disguised bigotry. It's still arguably legal bigotry. And then it was kind of, okay, well, now that's not so popular. We need to find ways to get around it. Like like this housing segregation that I'm currently reading about, you know, the way federal loans were guaranteed and the way that black neighborhoods were seen as like a danger. You know, it was a risky money to loan money to somebody who wanted to buy a house or build a house where there would be black people anywhere near it.

0:20:23 Thomas: You know that was seen as more of a risk and loans weren't given. All these ways that add up and it seems so weird because it seems undeniable to me. If you look at the research that statistically, if you were born in a poor neighborhood or of poor parents or whatever, that that will have an effect on you. And it's not 100 percent. And that's the key, because, yes, Barack Obama. Yes. Other black people, Oprah, like, yes. There are plenty of successful black people and that can happen, of course. But one of the patterns throughout history is to take black exceptionalism and to use it as a weapon to say, hey, other black people. Look, see, it's easy. You can all do it because this one person did. And it's, it goes back a long ways.

0:21:10 Thomas: And It's something that I've had to try and I still have a long way to go, but I've been trying to educate myself about because it's so easy to not know about. I really think that as I just said a moment ago, all the, all The incentives are to not bother with it. All the incentives are to not try to learn about this and to just, to just in your mind to just think, You know what? That's probably BS. That probably doesn't exist. I know I'm not racist. I know my friends aren't racist. I'm sure there's no racism. That's the easier thing to believe. And I think we have another message later on related to that, so I'll leave it here. But to say that somehow, I would be very curious what measure you would use to say that equality happened around 1992, because all the statistical measures would tell you we're just not there yet. So that's a very curious claim.

0:21:58 Voicemail: Hey Thomas, you made some great points today in episode 86. I just wanted to call in and say that I think that we're talking about the modern Nazis in kind of the wrong way. It's not just that it's white identity politics. I don't think white identity is the problem. White supremacy politics are the key problem. We're engaging in white identity when we acknowledge white privilege and when we acknowledge a history of white imperialism around the world and I think those are absolutely vital things to acknowledge knowledge if we want a more equal world. And I think ignoring the difference between white identity politics and white supremacy politics is what allows for false equivalencies like what Sam Harris is trying to make between Nazis and Black Lives Matter. So just wanted to say that. Thanks. Bye.

0:22:45 Thomas: This is interesting. I'm not totally sure what to think about this. I mean, I'm going to try to work my way through it for you guys. And I'm curious for feedback and opinions on this. I don't know that I agree with you, Collar. I am not totally sure. But I think the problem is there's no real clear agreed upon definition of identity politics. I think it does tend to become blurred depending on what you want it to mean.

0:23:15 Thomas: But because for all these other identity politics, I think you could actually ask the people involved what they believe and you could agree like, you know, for let's say it's Joe, let's take a less controversial one. Say, let's say it's veterans because that that's, you know, that's an identity or veteran. There are certainly veterans issues. There's there are very important veterans issues, health care, the fact that veteran suicide rate has been higher historically. I think that's gotten better, but it's been higher veteran homelessness rate. We've talked about that a little bit in the red pill episodes. So those are key issues. And I would hope that those are uncontroversial for the most part. I would help that you and I would agree, listeners, that if if there's say, you know, the problem of veteran homelessness is astronomically higher than than non-veteran homelessness, for example.

0:24:05 Thomas: Again, I think that's changed because we've done a lot of good programs to to help that. But let's say it were still a problem. Let's say veteran suicide rate, veteran mental health. That's certainly got to be an issue. I would think we would all agree, well, that that's just a valid issue. That's just the valuable thing to care about. Like I care about veterans. I care that they have an identity that is important, that is based on their life experience. It's not inherent. I mean, you're not born a veteran, of course, but I don't think that really matters. I still think that once you go through certain life experiences, you gain that identity in a way that, of coarse, it's not perfect. There's no fine line like how much military experience makes you. We could argue about that and it's not worthwhile because I think that's something that a lot of people have tried to do with me with other stuff where they say, well, my last name is Hispanic, but I look white.

0:24:58 Thomas: So doesn't that ruin your whole thing? It's actually a question I've gotten. But anyway, leaving all that aside, taking something like veterans issues, I would say that we would all agree veteran mental health is valid identity politics. And I think we would be able to agree with veterans who cared about that. If we asked veterans, okay, why do you care about mental health? You'd say, well, it's just an issue. It's an issue that'd happen if you've seen warfare, you're going to have mental health challenges that largely most people who haven't seen warfare or combat won't have. And, but, but when I, when you say that white identity politics needs to be differentiated from white supremacy, identity politics, my only reason I resist is if I think if you asked all these people, uh, are you white supremacists?

0:25:48 Thomas: They would obviously say, no, you know, I've got to correct myself. Not all of them. Actually, some of them would say yes, but I think that's very few. I think of you ask the people who are trying to talk about, you you know, oh, what about the white suicide rate? What about the white male dropout college dropout rate? They wouldn't agree that they are being white supremacists. They just have a difference. And maybe we're talking to a caller again. Sorry if I'm not referring to the same people you are referring to. But if we're taking a look at the white supremacy, we're talking about the same people. It's not as though they believe white people are better or anything. They just. Have an incorrect view of what the biggest problems in our society are. They just think that right now, the white male is the most persecuted person in our society.

0:26:36 Thomas: They really believe it. And I have talked to these people at length. They're out there. They're quite numerous. When you look at polls, a lot of Republicans believe this.

0:26:47 Thomas: But if you ask them, they aren't going to agree that white people are superior. They aren't gonna agree with that statement. I think it's less that and it's more a question of just being incorrect about what the problems are in our society, like what the most prevalent problems are. However, I will say there are a select few people and, you know, unfortunately, it's too many. I don't know what the actual numbers are, but there are people who actually do hold white supremacist views. Of course, they might even admit to it. A lot of people don't admit to it. They just think they don't. So, but really they do. But anyway, there are even people in our society, of course, who will admit to it. And if you're just talking about those people, then OK, I agree. But if you're talking about the kind of the larger numbers of people, which are the white men in our society and others, there are other groups who agree with them somehow, that white men are the most persecuted people in our society.

0:27:39 Thomas: Again, it's more just an incorrect epistemology. It's just not knowing the real trouble that's going on in our society, not knowing the real problems, and in some ways a lot of politics are identity politics and it's just a question of deciding what the most pressing problems are in some way. So the way I see it, and I could be wrong again, I really am looking forward to hearing opinions on this, but the way I have it defined in my mind, there is some categorical similarity between Black Lives Matter and all lives or White Lives Matter. The difference is the white lives or all lives matter people are just wrong in their facts. Like they're just wrong that those issues are more pressing.

0:28:27 Thomas: Because again, I don't think they would agree with white supremacy. Now you could, again, you can make an argument that the things that they're advocating for perpetuate white supremacy, and I'm all ears for that. I agree with that largely. But I think that the key difference isn't that that's the kind of identity politics they are playing. I think they are just incorrect in their views of the world. That's how I feel about it. Let me know if you think I'm wrong. Totally all ears on this issue. But that's where I am right now on it. I don't know that that is the way to go distinction-wise. Who knows? Could be wrong. Get back at me and tell me what you think.

0:29:06 Voicemail: Hi, Thomas. This is Darius from Kentucky. I'm a recent listener to yours ever since your appearance on We The People Live with Josh Steps. I really like your content. I was curious, though, I think it was on episode 86, you maybe brought up white privilege for a second, and you probably brought it up before, but that's the last I can remember. My question is, do you think maybe, while white privilege certainly exists, do you think it's at the top of the list of privileges in our society? What I mean by that is that it seems like other privileges might be more relevant, privileges like economic privileges and what kind of household you're born into.

0:29:47 Voicemail: My father's Iranian. My mother's Caucasian. But I look like a white guy. But I've never – in my life, it doesn't feel like my white appearance has given me a – but what it certainly has is that I was born into – a pretty economically stable family that's been able to provide for me. And I've always known that to be a real privilege, that people who don't have that are struggling more than I have. And I'm wondering if you've ever considered those privileges and where do you think they stand if we were to create a list of privileges in our society. And, yeah, I'd just like to hear your thoughts on that. Thanks.

0:30:25 Thomas: Hey, glad to have you as a new listener. I appreciate the question. I think that this ties back in with what I was talking about earlier and I do think that economics are a major thing. First off, I don't find much value in trying to rank privileges because it's, I mean, you also have to rank the other things if you're gonna do that, like how does white privilege compare to black existence, how does white privilege, how does cis privilege compare to trans existence. I mean, it's just not, I don't think we are really engaging in an oppression Olympics like people think progressives are. It's not as though we form a ranking and then whoever's at that top of that rank, they get the most currency and all that. It's not about that.

0:31:10 Thomas: It's just that recognizing differences do exist in terms of identity. People are treated differently in the society based on identity and history is a big part of it. So yes, I mean, if you are black, say, and you move to this country and you, you move to this company and you have some amount of wealth and you establish yourself and you moved to like a good neighborhood and you know, like you're going to have a much different experience than someone whose family is from here, whose ancestors were enslaved. You know, largely speaking, you're, you're gonna have a different experience. But the reason I'm reading this housing discrimination book, and there's so many more books I could read and I do plan on reading, is that there's a big intersection. It is not so clear cut as, oh, it's more about economics, because this is, you know, I've literally gotten messages that were simply, hey, isn't it more about rich versus poor, like with just a non sequitur?

0:32:06 Thomas: And it's sort of a stock go-to line when talking about racism or systemic oppression is, no, it's more just being poor. Like if you're poor, the poor white people have it just as bad, all that kind of thing. And there's two answers. First off, there's still the problem of if you're a rich black guy in this country, you could still get pulled over all the frigging time because you're still being racially profiled. You can still get stop and frisked. You could still be on your doorstep as this has happened. These stories are real. You could be on your doorstep and police think that you are robbing the house because of the way you look. I mean, that will happen to you no matter how wealthy you are. So that's the first step of the answer is no amount of wealth in this country as we now stand can help you escape from being labeled a certain way and being judged a certain way.

0:33:00 Thomas: So, that's step one. Step two is it's true that wealth is a big part of it, that income is a bit part of that. And if you are in a stable family, you do have advantages that someone not in a stable family doesn't have. So if you are black, say, and you are in a wealthy neighborhood in a staple family, of course, you are going to have advantages than a poor single mom raising a parent, that kind of thing. You can come up with the scenarios and yes, you're going to have advantages. It's undeniable that in some ways you will be advantaged. But notwithstanding step one that I already talked about, but also here's the key though. It's statistical trends. So we've systemically disenfranchised black people in this country historically.

0:33:47 Thomas: Again, doesn't mean every single black person. It doesn't mean every white person was racist. All those straw men that I always have to deal with. But systemically, we have taken wealth away. We have built white wealth on the backs of slaves in the 1800s and before that and going back, we have built wealth. We finally freed slaves eventually. And to give, again, just a reader's digest version of the history, after that point, what do you think happened? I mean, do you Think right after that, when the wealth was largely controlled, if not completely controlled by white men in this country, do You think that It just was handed all, forked all over, like to ex-slaves, to freed slaves. You think we just gave half our wealth over. It was all everybody's.

0:34:34 Thomas: No, of course not. African-Americans in this country historically had to start from a massive step down. And it's not as though that that ended in the 1800s. Not by a long shot. Not by long shot wealth has been systemically kept from black families. And by the way, we've covered it many times on this show. The drug war and, and just mass incarceration in general has targeted black families. That has made it harder for, as you talked about, Collar, for black families to be intact, for them to have a stable environment away from crime, you know, that, that has made it harder, much, much harder. And that, That all matters. We are still massively segregated in this society and school. That's, that's the next book I'd love to read about.

0:35:21 Thomas: And I know a little bit about it, but school segregation, we thought that it was this thing that ended a long time ago and it really hasn't in a lot of ways. And Alex Jules talked about this and it's something that has had a profound effect and we just like to pretend that it doesn't or that it's all choice, but you don't really have a choice of where you're born and that stretches back in history. Your ancestors, your parents didn't have a choice. Their parents didn't have a choice. And it's one thing if you want to say, okay, hypothetically, some people are able to fight all the way past that. And it is true that legally speaking, it's not as though you're absolutely kept from the possibility of a good outcome. That's of course, like it's possible to have a good income.

0:36:09 Thomas: It's just much, much harder given certain circumstances. And that is so TLDR, it is true that if you want to compare different, again, this is where intersectionality is actually important. If you want to compare a poor single white person to a wealthy married black person and then compare where they, you know, statistically line up, I mean, yeah, there are ways you can look at that. But what you can't escape is the fact that systemic oppression has made it so that that statistically more people of color proportionately will be in these lower socioeconomic classes. The black unemployment rate is finally getting a little better, but historically has been so much higher than the white unemployment rate.

0:36:56 Thomas: And that's just one tiny metric. So that's my short answer to, long answer, I guess, to your short question. Yes, income is important. Stable family is important. There are reasons why certain demographics have been able to have that. And it has its roots in a very disturbing history, if you want to do your research.

0:37:17 Voicemail: Hi Thomas, Dan Dan the Socialist Man here. I want to say I appreciate the fairness and balance of episode 92. However, I wanted to call in with my perspective. I maintain that the Democrats had the DNC favored or rigged in favor of the establishment candidates. You addressed independents being unable to vote for Sanders in multiple states, so I won't waste a lot of time on that issue. I believe that superdelegates exist precisely to prevent a Bernie Sanders from being elected and to attenuate the DNC from considering issues and candidates that break from their neoliberal platform. The early counting of superdelegates certainly seems to be no accident by the DNc. The suppressive effect this had on voter turnout benefited Clinton to a degree that I believe is considerable. If the Democratic Party wants to make politics more democratic through addressing gerrymandering or the Electoral College, it should focus on being internally democratic first.

0:38:06 Voicemail: If we want to say that the DNC can make whatever rules it likes as a private organization, then we need to acknowledge that our government has been hijacked by a two-party oligarchy spanning over 100 years. I understand that episode 92 was on Donna Brazile's extraordinary claims, but the fact remains that Bernie Sanders was not given a fair race. And in my opinion, Sanders supporters have the right to harbor a grudge. I do also want to say that this doesn't change the fact that the general election was between a neoliberal and a borderline fascist, and everybody had a responsibility to vote against Trump to protect people of color, women, and LGBTQ folks. For a white man to say otherwise is to stand on a mountain of privilege. As always, thanks for all you do, man. Bye.

0:39:13 Thomas: We still had a moral duty to not let that happen. So I appreciate that. But let's talk about your claims because I think you make some good arguments. I first want to say, first thing that occurred to me was if your argument is that we need to make this more democratic and we can't, you know, the superdelegates screwed over Bernie Sanders. The only thing I'd say is I do think there is something to the argument that had they not counted superdelegetes early, that might have have encouraged potential Bernie Sanders voters who thought there was more of a chance. I agree with that. I will say, though, that first off, it's just it's weird to assume that there's all these things that affected voters who weren't as able to intuit this information. You know, it's kind of, I've struggled with it.

0:39:58 Thomas: On one hand, it may be true. On the other hand, It seems pretty elitist to say, well, sure, I know how the system works and the fact that the superdelegates, you know, don't shouldn't really count right right now. And, you know, they likely aren't going to go against the delegates because they weren't. They didn't go against the delegates.

0:40:15 Thomas: It's my opinion that they weren't going to based on 2008, especially Hillary had an early superdelegate lead. But once the actual delegate, you know, what's the primaries were going a certain way, I think it's highly unlikely that the superdelegetes were ever going to overrule the delegates. You know, that's it's a matter of of opinion, that's my opinion. So then there's that, and then the other end of that is if if you are wanting a purely democratic system, realize that then we should also get rid of caucuses, because they are incredibly stupid and caucuses massively favored Bernie, and that would take away actually a lot of his edge, and it would it would more than cancel out. So if if you made the bargain, okay, let's relitigate, and let's say it was all open primaries, uh, we'll trade some of those closed primaries, but you have to get rid of the caucuses.

0:41:08 Thomas: The statistical numbers show, and you can, again, you can allege that 538 is just shills for Hillary or something, and that's fine. I guess you can try to make a statistical argument for yourself, but I trust them. They actually ended up being fairly right on about this election. They predicted Trump had a better chance than most people thought. But anyway, they modeled that all open primaries still would have favored favored Hillary by quite a bit. So, you know, that cuts both ways is all I'm saying. And I actually think, so here's where we get to opinion time in terms of going forward. Going forward, I would be okay with that. It's a curious thing because this primary system that we have, in some ways it seems obvious, it seems intuitive that as Democrats or Republicans, either one of us, it seems intuitively that there should be this primary systems where each state votes And then, you know, it's it's we're a democracy in this country, right?

0:42:04 Thomas: We've been a democracy forever. Whoever gets the most votes, that's who runs in the general. And then whoever gets the most vote, well, then the electoral college ruins that. But theoretically, whoever gets the most votes wins that. Well, it'S the funny thing is, as I'm guessing most of you know this is something I wasn't familiar with because I'm not that old. You know, I haven't been around that long, but for my entire life, this has kind of been the case that the primary system sort of pretty much worked this way. But you don't have to go back that far to where it didn't work this way at all. The nominee was completely chosen by party elders. There were some primaries, but it was sort of the reverse of the system we have now where as of right now, I hope this changes. We'll get to that in a sec, but superdelegates are 14, 15%. So they actually, they can't make all the difference.

0:42:51 Thomas: They can make a difference certainly, but they can't single-handedly decide an election. They're only 14, 15%. Opposite. Primaries were a very small percentage, but then the party elders essentially could just decide. And it was after, I'm looking at my history here, Wikipedia, admittedly, as far as I'm delving into this right now, but Hubert Humphrey was the nominee in 1968 and he lost horribly. And that was when people started being pretty frustrated with non-competitive Democrat candidates who were just chosen by the party, and they lost really badly. So 68, 72, McGovern got absolutely destroyed in the election. And so there was a switch to a more Democratic process, which they hoped, Democrats hoped, would result in more competitive candidates.

0:43:40 Thomas: And it didn't really seem to matter. It didn't help much for several years going forward. And it's interesting, too, when you think about other countries where you just vote on the the party, and then the party actually elects the prime minister, say. So in some ways, it's a little American-centric to expect this. That being said, I think there's good argument for it. I think it does make sense to maybe have a Democrat. I don't know. I mean, I could go either way, honestly. But if we did it the way it's done in the UK, and it just depended on who was in Congress, Democrats would be absolutely screwed because of gerrymandering, so we would never have a president. So I guess it's good for Democrats right now that the presidential election is sort of a separate thing. Or conversely, if the system were different, maybe that would encourage Democrats to vote down-ballot all the time and actually vote in these other elections and not just focus on the presidency.

0:44:33 Thomas: So I mean, I guess that door could swing either way there. At any rate, allegedly right now, as you know, the superdelegates exist to kind of prevent a George McGovern situation. If the people choose somebody who's unelectable, as a lot of people argued Hillary was, then the superdelegates would be choosing a better candidate. But I don't know why it would be that superdelegetes could do any better, to be honest, because it seems like when we have all these primaries now where millions, tens of millions of votes are cast, that's got to be a pretty decent predictor of who will get tens of billions of votes in the general. I think it's got to be probably as good as a super delegate deciding that they think they know who will get votes in the general.

0:45:21 Thomas: I would think all this is to say, I don't think it'S a given. And historically and globally, it'S actually not a given that this process should even be democratic. So that'S something to think about. But my leanings are that we might as well be one or the other. You know, like it really should be all one or all the other. I don't really think a system of superdelegates makes sense. So Dan, I probably agree with you, but we should get rid of caucuses as well.

It should just be primaries. We then should argue, if you were to grant me that, we should argue about whether it should be closed primaries or open primaries, I'm certainly open to the argument that since independents decide in some ways the election, they should be open to deciding our candidate. But at the same time, then it's kind of weird. So independents, are they involved in both the Republican and the Democrat candidate primaries? But I think you could make a fairness argument that parties should select their own candidates. And then once the general comes, you vote for who you want to. I mean, a Democrat could vote for Republican, Republican vote for Democrat. Independent could vote för the actual independent, like some independent candidate, or they could vote für Democrat or Republican. I don't know.

I do not know that the argument for open primaries necessarily make sense to me. I could be, you know, biased by recent events, of course. But my counter to that would be I actually did vote for Bernie and I actually did want Bernie to win the primary. So, you Know, and even at the time, I remember thinking, like, I don't know that independents should necessarily be allowed to vote in primaries because it is the party.

0:46:59 Thomas: Like, the party is deciding their candidate. It makes sense that you should have to belong to that party to decide the best candidate for that party. But I think largely we agree, Dan. I think there is a compelling argument that the superdelegates could have tipped some votes. I'm still not entirely convinced that it made a huge difference, but, you know, it could have, and it's a stupid system. I will agree with you that I really do think we should go all one or all the other, you know, and this hybrid system doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Now, for the record, the superDelegates never decided it. It wasn't as though the superdelegates were what tipped the election. I'm not seeing a firm decision either way. I'm seeing some things that superdelegetes will be reduced. But, you know, I agree with you. Let's get rid of the stupid superdelects.

0:47:44 Thomas: There's just no point. Like, what's 15%? Does that make sense? Does 10% make sense, does 5%? Like, one or the other. So I'll agree with that. I'll disagree with you that far. I think that is a reform that they should do. It looks like they're kind of going that direction. We'll see if they follow through with it. I don't know. I think the problem is that a lot of the superdelegates, are they themselves the ones who vote on these reforms? So who knows if they'll want to vote themselves out of existence? Likely they won't. But I agree. Let's get rid of them. They don't do anything.

0:48:21 Thomas: If they swung a primary, we'd be pissed. I mean, and rightfully so. So I think we should be pissed because it's just them using what they think their better judgment is to overrule what the voters think, you know, is the best decision for the general. I think we would all be pissed and I think we'd be right to be pissed. So let's get rid of it.

0:48:40 Voicemail: Hey Thomas, this is Hausdorff. I wanted to leave you a message about the episode you played recently where the three women shared their stories of sexual harassment. It sparked a memory in me from high school that I wanted to share. So my dad and his buddies were really big Limbaugh fans, and I remember this time they were going off about how rape and sexual harassment had been completely redefined into the point where anybody could get in trouble for basically anything. And I remember the story in particular that stuck with me was they said, you know, I could be staring off into space, lost in thought. A woman could walk into my field of view and I could get in trouble for that. And, you know, as a kid, I was 14 at the time, I found it terrifying because I'm a really spaced guy. That could totally happen to me.

0:49:26 Voicemail: And you know I like to think if the stories were shared, the real stories like the ones that your guests shared on that episode, if those were kind of more out there at the time, hopefully I wouldn't have fallen for something so ridiculous. You know, I look back at it now and it's kind of embarrassing, but I didn't know any better when I was 14. But, you know, I just wanted to say thank you to those women for sharing their stories and for you for giving them the platform. Thank you. And I love your podcast.

0:49:54 Thomas: Hey, thanks so much. That's funny. You know, I almost I might be creating a memory, but, you know, my parents were actually avid Rush Limbaugh listeners as well. And that sounds very familiar to me, but I could just be grasping at straws there to try to. But, but yeah, I think it's so, how funny is that idea that things swung too far the other way in the nineties as it, you know, everything we're seeing now with all the, the, the accusations and the multiply verified accusations, we were just finding out how disgusting and prevalent a problem this was like actual, and none of these complaints have been, he looked at me, you Know, he was looking at me when none of them have been None of these massive scandals have been, yes, a woman said that a man looked at her.

0:50:42 Thomas: And of course not. And the idea that that was a huge problem and it already swung too far that way in the 90s is ridiculous. And as you acknowledge, is absurd. And I agree. Again, I lament that people need to be sharing these stories. I wish that that weren't necessary. I wish our society was much better and much more equitable and people were able to get the justice they want for this kind of thing, and that they need. But again, we aren't living in that society yet. So since we aren't, I am, as you are as well, very grateful to these women who shared their stories and very grateful for what they're doing. And I think it is really helping. And, you know, we're really seeing a good change. Doesn't mean it's perfect.

0:51:28 Thomas: Doesn't mean it's, you know, it doesn't mean it'll necessarily last. I hope it will. But I think we're seeing positive change. And if you follow me on Twitter, you might've seen, I tweeted a few things about this. It's the view of Jordan B. Peterson and among others, that this is actually a consequence of the sexual revolution that somehow, you know this, this uncoupling, as Jordan B Peterson put it, the uncoupling of sex from marriage is what's really leading to all this behavior. Men, you think they can do whatever they want. And of course, that's not true. I actually retweeted a part of a David from Twitter thread where he was talking about this. It's not a result. I think he put it well. This isn't a result of more unethical behavior. People aren't behaving more sexually unethically now.

0:52:15 Thomas: It is actually a result of an increase in standards. So, we have decided now, finally, we are starting to decide that a lot of previously swept under under the rug, disgusting activity is now no longer something we can ignore. And that's what's causing all these revelations. This behavior didn't just start. And there's a lot I could say about this, but another thought that kind of occurred to me, I couldn't quite get it into a tweet that I was happy with, but something that occurred to me is, you know, of course feminism has been met with such resistance. When we look at how many men think it's like an impossible time to be a man right now, because, oh, you just, no matter what you do, you're going to be accused of groping or masturbating in front of someone.

0:53:00 Thomas: And it's like, no, you'd just have to not grope or masturbate in front of people. And then I think you're fine. But is it no wonder that there was so much resistance? And there's, of course, there still is so much existence to this because men, frankly, stood a lot to gain by not ever having their behavior checked and by being able to kind of gaslight society with things like this, by the way. That is, in my opinion, I'm sorry if the term, I'm using it too liberally, but in my opnion, that is an attempt to gaslight by Rush Limbaugh in the 90s. To say that it is so gone the other way that you're just going to be staring off into space and you're going to get charged with sexual harassment. That's an attempt to make people think reality is other than it is, to make people think that there's this huge problem that there isn't.

0:53:50 Thomas: I think, in some ways, an attempt to gaslight society at large. And no wonder you would want to do that if you were maybe somebody like Bill O'Reilly, for example. You stood to gain quite a bit from the status quo of people not taking harassment seriously enough. So thanks for the call. Thanks for all the calls. That's all the time we have. I love these voicemail segments and I keep them coming and keep them fresh. Keep them on new ideas. I will get to them. They're really fun. They show the intelligence of my audience. It's something I'm very proud of. I would rather have a tiny fraction of some YouTuber's subscriber count because I know it's not all trolls and mean people who want to harass people.

0:54:36 Thomas: It's intelligent, thoughtful people, and it's always fun to hear from you guys. So thanks so much for listening. I hope you enjoyed that. Again, I thought it was a good opportunity to go through the voicemail. I'm hoping I'll line up that interview again. Hopefully we can reschedule with that guest. But next week, don't worry, I'll be back to my regularly scheduled guesting. And on Thursday, maybe I'll probably put up a patron poll again to see where we want to go. There's a lot we could talk about. Who knows? Maybe we'll finally get to Red Pill Volume 2. But with that said, thank you so much for listening. Thanks you so mucho to pledging over at patreon.com slash seriouspod. There's going to be another Jake News with Thomas coming up real soon. Very fun segment. Very fun bonus content for patrons only as a little thank you. So I hope you enjoy that. With that said, I'll see you on Thursday.