(upbeat music)
- Welcome Showdy Stans.
I have an important announcement to make.
I'm sorry, please don't get mad at me,
but we need to talk
about Ben Shaprio again,
and we need to talk about
systemic racism again.
And I know, I know what
you're going to say,
"Didn't you just do
like an hour-long video
"about systemic racism?
"And haven't you already
done another hour-long video
"about Ben Shaprio specifically?"
Well, first of all, like and subscribe.
Also, here's the thing,
Ben Shapiro just had an
extended conversation about race
on the Joe Rogan Podcast.
And it's weirdly kind of like
his unintentional response
to our last video about this topic.
And so the Some More News team,
which at this point is mainly
my new wife Mr. Masky and I,
just couldn't resist
diving into his continued
weird unnecessary lies and
tortured logic a little bit.
It felt like a good opportunity
to put some of our own claims to the test.
Like, is Ben Shapiro a liar liar
whose long shorts are on fire?
And who knows, maybe we'll learn
something new along the way.
That could be fun, right?
The other reason is that, it seems like,
maybe, perhaps, possibly,
Joe Rogan watched our
episode on systemic racism.
Now, we're not sure, probably not.
It's just this conversation happened
about a week after our video came out.
And in this discussion,
Joe Rogan actually pushes back
against some of Ben's assertions
by kind of summarizing it,
which makes with some pretty interesting
and some pretty revealing results.
And frankly this might be the closest
we are ever going to be able to get
when it comes to confronting
Ben on these issues ourselves.
Ben and I like to keep our
band practices politics-free.
So, in this instance,
Joe Rogan will be serving as our
admittedly very, very,
very imperfect Avatar.
And yet somehow, it is precisely this fact
that allows Ben to let
his guard down a bit.
I guess he thought he was in a safe space.
And so it gives us a rare
glimpse of what it's like
when Ben actually gets
some legitimate pushback to his nonsense.
So, let's dive in.
But first, a trigger warning.
This episode will contain
some disgusting racist ideas,
and this guy, talking out loud
with sounds from his mouth.
You have been warned.
- The biggest problem right
now on the racism point
is the shifting definition of racism.
- Ah yes, definitions.
Ben Shapiro's strong suit.
Ben Shakespiro, the famous wordsmith.
All of a sudden, these
sneaky smugglers are shiftily
shifting the definition of racism.
It's so unfair to me!
- And the way I define racism
is probably the same
way you define racism:
You believe in the inferiority
or superiority of a group based on race,
of an individual based on their membership
in that group too, right?
That'd be racism.
I believe that you're
inferior or your superior
based on your race.
End of story, right?
That's racism.
So Robyn D'Angelo and Abraham
Candy redefine racism to mean,
any societal structure that
results in a racial inequality
is itself racist
- It's worth pointing
out that the word racism
is actually a pretty recent word.
It doesn't show up in the English language
until the early 20th century,
and wasn't widely used
until about the 1940s.
And this makes sense
if you think about it,
because it was around this time
that the first racist person was born,
John Cornelius Racism.
And as we all know, there was no racism
before the early 20th century.
But I'm being insensitive, I'm sorry.
I'm a sarcastic news
dude, this is what I do!
It's clear that Ben is very mad
that his definition isn't the same one
everyone else is suddenly using.
Maybe we can calm Ben down
a bit if we reveal to him
that these discussions and debates
about the definition of racism,
and that the impact of
policies and practices
and structures and
systems and institutions
should be included in that
definition, are not a new thing.
Here's what Beverly Daniel Tatum,
Author of "Why Are All The Black Kids
"Sitting Together In The Cafeteria"
had to say about defining racism.
"Racism, like other forms of oppression,
"is not only a personal ideology
based on racial prejudice,
"but a system involving cultural messages
"and institutional
policies and practices."
This was Published in 1997,
when Ben Shapiro was just a
very special 13-year old boy
with dreams of making it big in Hollywood.
In his Book "Portraits of White Racism,"
Davis Wellman defines racism as a
"system of advantage based on race."
This book was published in 1977,
before Ben was even a baby nut,
which is to say a sperm in his dad's nuts.
In their book, "Black Power:
The Politics of Liberation,"
Stokely Carmichael, later
known at Kwame Ture,
and Charles V. Hamilton,
argue that there are
actually two types of racism;
individual racism and
institutional racism.
And that Institutional racism
originates in the operation
of established and respected
forces in the society,
and thus receives far
less public condemnation
than individual racism.
Funny, that's what you do Ben!
It's almost like Kwame Ture
predicted your existence in 1967
before he changed his name!
I'm sorry if you feel
like you've had the rug
pulled out from under you Ben.
But the fact is, language
literally evolves.
And I know it's kind of annoying
that you can't tell whether or not
I mean that literally or figuratively,
since they now literally
mean the same thing.
But I imagine the thing
that really irks you,
is that now even the
Merriam-Webster's dictionary
doesn't solely define racism
as the beliefs of individuals,
but also as a political or
social system founded on racism.
And maybe this is why you are so very mad
about The 1619 Project.
A series of essays published
in the New York Times Magazine
with the goal of re-examining
the legacy of slavery
in the United States.
- The basic argument is the
United States was not founded
in 1776 with the principles
of the Declaration of Independence,
the country was actually founded in 1619
with the importation of African
slaves to American shores,
because that's when
the first African slave
arrived in the United States, was 1619.
So the idea is, that the
entire history of America
is a history of a system
that is endemically white supremacist.
And that all of the
Declaration of Independence
is basically a lie.
That the principles of
all men are created equal,
that was a lie when it was
written and it's a lie now,
that the idea that we have
rights that preexists government,
that's a lie.
All of these things are lies;
the constitution was built
in order to enshrine white supremacy.
- Okay, so a lot to unpack here.
A few things.
You are aware that the
Constitution explicitly states
that enslaved Black people who
couldn't vote had no rights,
were separated from
their families and beat,
tortured, and killed,
were to be counted as,
"Three-Fifths of all other Persons."
You are aware of that, Ben.
Maybe I'm alone here,
but that sounds like enshrining
white supremacy to me.
His other critique, that
it is inaccurate to say
that the Declaration of
Independence was a lie,
well, yeah, it was,
but not in the way that you appear
to be disinBENuously suggesting.
You seem to be claiming
that the 1619 project
rejects the principles set forth
in the Declaration of Independence.
It does not.
It's just saying that our nation
did not uphold those principles.
Which it clearly didn't.
In her essay entitled: "Our
democracy's founding ideals
"were false when they were written.
"Black Americans have
fought to make them true."
Nikole Hannah Jones writes:
"The United States is a nation founded
"on both an ideal and a lie.
"Our Declaration of Independence,
approved on July 4, 1776,
"proclaims that, 'All
men are created equal
"'and endowed by their Creator
"'with certain unalienable rights.'
"But the white men who drafted those words
"did not believe them to be true
"for the hundreds of thousands
"of black people in their midst.
"'Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness'
"did not apply to fully
one-fifth of the country.'
I mean, that's true.
Yes, it's the case that
there were some founders
who were opposed to slavery.
But take a look at this famous painting
of the signing of the
Declaration of Independence.
And now look at it with red
dots on all of the enslavers.
Kinda seems like a bunch
of those people were lying
when they said that "All
Men are created Equal."
Maybe that's just me,
but what about you Ben?
What do you think is the
real story of America?
- Now, the traditional motion of America
is that America was founded in 1776.
And that the story of America
is that America did tolerate
the great original sin of
slavery, up until the Civil War,
and then tolerated Jim Crow
up until the civil rights
movement of the 1960s.
And that is a great stain
and a blot on America.
But the story of America
is trying to fulfill
the promises of the Declaration
of Independence over time,
make those promise is
available to everybody.
And this isn't my argument,
this Martin Luther King Junior's argument,
when he talks in the march in Washington
about fulfilling the promissory note
of the Declaration of Independence.
He says, "We're here to
cash the check, right?"
"You issued us the check,
"and then you didn't let
black Americans be Americans.
"We're here to cash the check."
- Okay, so if I'm hearing this right,
your disagreement with the argument
that our founding
democracy's ideals were false
when they were written,
and that "Black American's
have fought to make them true,"
is to acknowledge that,
sure, America tolerated
slavery and Jim Crow,
and that is a stain and a blot on America.
But that the real story of America
is trying to fulfill the promises
of the Declaration of Independence.
So, how exactly are these
two arguments different?
The only real difference I
can see is the word "Black."
Weird.
Also weird that you cite
Martin Luther King Jr.,
incidentally a Black man,
who fought to make the stated
ideals of our nation true,
as an example of someone
who agrees with you.
Maybe weird is not the right word.
Now, I know that I like to
kid around a lot on this show
and portray the character of a disheveled
and disgruntled news dude,
but I mean this in all sincerity, Ben.
I really think you should stop quoting
Martin Luther King Jr.
I think you should keep his name
out of your filthy (beep) mouth.
I think you should stop
appropriating his words
for your right-wing reactionary agenda,
because breaking news,
MLK was a radical Leftist.
And that historic speech
about the promissory note and blank check
that you reference, I don't
think you understand it.
Because if you did, you would recognize
that it's essentially the same argument
that is being made in the 1619 project.
Because when King states:
- America has given the
Negro people a bad check,
a check which has come back
marked "insufficient funds."
- He is very obviously saying
that our democracy's
founding ideas were false
when they were written.
And when Nikole Hannah Jones talks about
how Black Americans have
fought to make them true,
she is talking about people
like Martin Luther King.
In other words, what the (beep)
are you talking about, man?
The argument that you think you are making
against the narrative of the 1619 project,
is actually an argument in
support of the 1619 project.
Ben, I'm starting to think
that you might be stupid or lying or both.
Probably both.
And you seem to have a major problem
understanding how history
impacts the present.
- So the 1619 project
has essays blaming literally
everything on racism.
So disparities in maternal mortality
between black women and white women,
which by the way exist
in Europe and in Canada,
that's due to American racism.
- Wow, Ben, they don't actually
have any reliable statistics
on the Maternal Mortality
rate of Black people
in comparison to White people in Canada.
So, that's just a lie or a terrible guess.
And are you suggesting
that racism doesn't also exist in the UK?
But, more importantly,
the argument put forth
in the 1619 project,
is that myths about
physical racial differences
were used to justify slavery,
and are still believed by doctors today.
This is true, and it is a major factor
for the elevated levels
of Maternal Mortality
among Black women in the US.
Yet Ben continues with his grievances
about the absurdity of the
idea that our racist past
could possibly impact our lives today.
- Traffic patterns in the United States
is due to systematic American racism.
- So, the essay that Ben is
referencing here is called,
"What does a traffic jam in Atlanta
"have to do with segregation?
"Quite a lot."
It is very obvious that
the title of this essay,
which is the only part
of the essay Ben read,
is specifically designed
to make the reader think,
"How could something that
seems so disconnected
"from our history of segregation
"actually be caused by that history?"
But instead of trying to
understand that point,
by reading the essay,
Ben decides to portray this concept
as an utterly ridiculous idea.
Yet the data, the history,
and yes, the facts which don't care
about your feelings, Ben, are clear.
Overtly racist policies that
subsidized the suburbanization
and home ownership of white families,
while explicitly denying Black
families this opportunity,
relegated them into the
high traffic inner cities
adjacent to highways and freeways,
commonly known as ghettos.
Which, since we know how
much Ben loves definitions,
are defined as, "A quarter of a city
"in which members of a
minority group live especially
"because of social, legal,
or economic pressure."
And the consequences of
this, which Ben is mocking,
aren't good.
Studies have shown that
Black and Hispanic people
disproportionately suffer
from the severe health
implications of air pollution
at far higher rates than white people.
And also, this residential segregation
has consigned a large
percentage of Black people
into areas of high pollution,
concentrated poverty and a
lack of economic opportunity
and healthy food options,
which has also created a higher
level of the health risks
such as obesity and hypertension
that coincide with higher
levels of maternal mortality.
It's almost like, this is
all some sort of system.
It's like a system that
involves race somehow.
And it's definitely like
perhaps history matters.
And Ben, it's almost like you didn't watch
the episode we did called:
How to Pretend that Systemic
Racism Doesn't Exist.
You'd like it!
You are one of the main characters!
But it may be the case
that Joe Rogan actually
did watch this episode.
- So, if we look at 1776,
and we look at the
Declaration of Independence,
and we look at America today in 2020,
there clearly is some impact
in the echoes of slavery,
and then after that, Jim Crow,
there's clearly some impact
in these deeply impoverished communities
that don't seem to advance.
- Yes.
So, to make the argument
about institutional racism,
there's a couple ways you can read this.
When people say systemic
racism or institutional racism,
I usually ask them to be
a little more specific
in what they mean,
'cause there are a few
ways you can read that.
One is, history has impact.
Of course, that's true, right?
That's true for everybody.
It's true in your family history.
And if you have a grandfather
who went to prison on a particular charge,
that leads to poverty for your parents,
which led to more poverty for you, right?
People have histories,
those histories are embedded
in their life experiences,
and that's true for societies as well.
All of that is for sure true.
Then there's the question
as to whether the
institutions today are racist?
And that's not quite
the same thing, right?
Because history has consequences
is not the same thing as saying
the rules today are racist.
Because the rules today
are not racist, actually,
the rules today are quite not racist.
- Okay, so we are pretty familiar
with this trick from Ben by now.
He creates a straw-man
definition of systemic racism
that literally no one is making,
claiming that the definition
of systemic racism
is explicitly and
intentionally racist laws
that exist today,
while simultaneously minimizing the impact
of history on racial inequality.
- But historically, it's fairly recent.
If you go from the civil
rights movement to 2020,
we're really not talking
about how much time,
we're talking about 50 plus years.
- [Ben] 60 years, yeah.
- 50 plus.
- Ben really wants to make it seem
like this all happened
a really long time ago,
so that he can dismiss its
impact as much as possible.
Three generations, 60 years!
By the way, here's a recent
picture of Magic Johnson
who just turned 60.
Ben also seems to be forgetting
about the voting rights Act of 1965,
and the Supreme Court decision in 1967
that banned the outlaw
of interacial marriage,
which would make it 53
years, so actually 50 plus.
By the way the ban on
inter-racial marriage
wasn't amended in the Alabama constitution
until the year 2000.
Just a fun little factoid for you.
Also, for no particular reason,
here's a picture of Daniel Smith.
He's 88 years old.
His father... was enslaved.
But yeah, Ben,
oh, God, this all happened,
it happened such a long time ago!
But Ben, if all the racist
rules disappeared in the 1960s,
why did we continue to see laws
that outlawed racial discrimination
in systems and institutions
after this period?
Laws like The Fair Housing Act of 1968,
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974,
The Housing Financial
Discrimination Act enacted in 1977?
By the way, here is a picture
of actress Kerry Washington
who happens to have been born in 1977.
Congratulations on your recent
Emmy nominations, K-Dub!
It's because the definition
of systemic racism
is not explicitly and
intentionally racist laws.
In fact Kendi's definition,
who Ben was so mad about,
is a lot more useful if your ultimate goal
is to achieve racial equality.
Under Kendi's definition,
systemic racism is an
array of racist policies,
only a subset of which are
explicitly racist laws.
And a racist policy or
"rule" as Ben might say,
is one that produces or
perpetuates racial inequality.
They can be written or
unwritten, explicit or implicit,
intentional or unintentional,
conscious or unconscious.
They can be quite limited,
or vast in their impact.
They can take the form of
habits, customs or traditions.
They can be held by individuals or groups,
or by institutions; schools,
school systems, churches,
corporations, hospitals, libraries,
local state or national governments,
police departments and
other government agencies,
the court system, the jail
and prison system, etc.
It can also take the form
of the absence of policies
that you don't enact.
A good example of a racist policy
that doesn't explicitly
mention race at all,
is a new policy that our
very racist President
recently announced via tweet:
"I am happy to inform all of the people
"living their Suburban Lifestyle Dream,
"that you will no longer be bothered
"or financially hurt
"by having low income housing
built in your neighborhood."
Now, it's true Trump didn't
use the N-Word in this tweet,
and I suppose it's impossible to know
what is truly in his heart.
But this is the guy that was
sued by the federal government
for violating the fair housing act
by the NIXON ADMINISTRATION in 1973,
because he wasn't letting Black people
move into his properties.
And so, while Rogan doesn't
press Ben on his claim
that "the rules today
are quite not racist,"
he does press him on the role of history
and its impact on racial inequality today.
- In the world of...
- In that span of human
history, it's now...
- It's very small amount of time,
so clearly there's some impact
of both racism and Jim Crow laws.
So that's why I'm saying
there's a middle ground.
- Yeah.
In depth, it is important for people,
on my side of the art conservatives,
to acknowledge and recognize
the importance of history
in people's living situations now.
And it's important for people
on the other side of the aisle
to at the same time not attribute
every single thing to history.
- But people who were
born something like that,
there's always like,
extremes on each position
and the truth lies
somewhere in the middle.
- Yeah, but I don't
think that it lies as far
in the dead center of that
as people I think wanted to.
- Okay, so Ben is starting to make
some important concessions here.
He is acknowledging that history matters.
"Not as much as a lot
of people want it to,"
apparently, you slippery weirdo.
But you can start to
see him getting backed
into a corner here.
How will he try to weasel his way out?
We already know this actually,
he will try and claim.
- So, what do you as an
individual black person do
to change your life?
And I don't think it's helpful.
In fact, I think it's
actually quite hurtful
to spend an enormous amounts of time
talking about the legacy of
discrimination and racism,
instead of talking about
what can you do right now
to fix yourself.
- But in this particular setting
where it's not a college student
whose mic gets immediately cut off,
we get to see Ben actually have to respond
to sustained pushback.
Now, we're gonna play this next clip
for a little bit longer
than we normally do,
mostly because it's kinda
fun to watch him squirm.
- The way to fight against
that is to make good decisions.
And so, you fight against the system
to make sure that the system has rules
that apply equally to everyone.
- But you clearly see that
there's a big difference
between people coming over here willingly,
and doing so in order
to better their lives,
versus someone whose ancestors
were dragged over here
to be sold as property,
and then dealing with the repercussions
of that being your family history,
and redline laws, and all the other things
that were put in place
to sort of keep them
in very specific areas,
which to this day remain
crime ridden, gang ridden,
deeply impoverished communities.
- Well, that's true, but the question is,
how much Much of that
is historic redlining,
and how much of that is
an 18 year old kid today
deciding to pepper gun and shoot somebody?
- But how much of that
18 year old kid today
deciding to pick up a
gun and shoot somebody,
is based on him growing up
in this fucked up environment
where that's what he models?
Where everything around
him is crime and gangs,
and you imitate your atmosphere,
which is what all humans do.
- Right, but the answer is,
there's only one way to break that chain.
- What ways are?
- That way is to not pick
up a gun and shoot somebody.
- I think that a simplistic
way of looking at it,
if you're on the outside
of that community,
and you're not one of those
18 year old kids that grows up
with the incredible influence
of all the people around him,
and that's all you see,
and it's all you know.
- Well, but the problem is,
the thing that your kid doesn't know
is for you not to do it.
At some point, personal
agency has to come in.
- It does.
But education and teaching
them about personal agency,
and letting them understand
that there is a way out of this,
and that the path they see
being replicated over and over again
by these people that wind up dying young,
that wind up going jail,
that there are other options.
- Oh, sorry.
This was just so entertaining.
And it's a welcome distraction
from glancing outside, I guess.
By the way, I fully recognize
that Joe Rogan's framing of this situation
is far from ideal.
But you have to admit that
it is pretty interesting
for Ben to think that his
standard operating procedure
is going to work,
only to be persistently
rebutted by the concept
that our history of systemic racism
impacts the available options
for children growing up today.
And it becomes a lot
harder to make the case
that the only way to
address racial inequality
is for individual Black
people to make better choices,
after you have just acknowledged
that the range of their choices
is limited by our history of
racism and racist policies.
Where will Ben go from here?
- I totally agree with this.
And this is why I think Worst thing
that you can say to a kid,
is you're born behind the eight ball,
and no matter what you do,
you're not gonna succeed.
- Okay, Joe Rogan,
you're a little bit out of your depth here
and starting to show your limitations.
So we'll take this one.
Ben, who exactly is telling Black children
that no matter what you do
you're not going to succeed?
- The only point that I'm
making about the 1619 project,
is when you teach people
that they are the victims of a society,
it makes it very difficult
for them to succeed.
- Oh right, I almost forgot,
the 1619 project is
creating a victim mentality.
So, what are you suggesting, Ben?
Are you saying we should
lie to Black children
about our history?
As Nikole Hannah Jones recently stated
in response to Senator Tom Cotton,
who is trying to ban the use
of the 1619 project in schools,
and recently claimed that the founders
rightly viewed slavery as a necessary evil
upon which the union was built.
"Imagine thinking a
non-divisive curriculum is one
"that tells Black children,
"the buying and selling
of their ancestors,
"the rape, torture, and forced labor
"of their ancestors for profit,
"was just a necessary
evil for the creation
"of the noblest country
the world has ever seen."
In fact, the 1619 project has
specifically and intentionally
placed Black Americans
at the center of the fight for Democracy.
Black children learning a
narrative of American history
through the framing of the 1619 project
would understand their
ancestors to be heroes,
to be people that
persevered against all odds.
In one of her essays, Jones states,
"Our founding fathers may
not have actually believed
"in the ideals they espoused,
but black people did."
Now, that sounds like some empowering
(beep) right there, Ben,
and like maybe you're the one
who's feeling disempowered.
That sounds like some rah rah
America (beep) right there,
to the point where it is
actually making this news dude
a little bit queasy.
It makes me almost wanna start celebrating
the 4th of July again, almost.
Ben, I know it's hard to face
the truth about our founders,
especially since you
started dressing up as one
when you were 5 years old.
Also, what is with this obsession
with what Black children are taught?
What about what like
white children are taught?
Because if we were to teach white kids
that racism ended when
Martin Luther King said,
"I have a dream," in a nation
with a 10 to one racial wealth gap,
in a nation with so
much racial inequality,
well, Ibram X. Kendi can
say it better than me.
- [Ibram] What post racial
ideas say to everyday people is,
basically, racist policy no longer exists.
And it says that to people in
a nation of racial inequity,
in a nation of racial segregation.
And so then it causes the
individual to be like,
"Okay, why does all of these inequities
"and disparities exist?
"If it's not racist policy,
if it's not racial terror,
"then it must be something wrong
"with a particular racial group"
- What if instead we
taught white children,
and in fact, children,
empathy and compassion?
And instead of prioritizing myth-making,
we prioritized truth-telling?
We might have the chance of
living in a more equal nation.
What do you think about that idea, Ben?
What if we taught empathy?
- Empathy is not actually
the best thing for politics.
It actually almost deactivates
the reasoning centers of your brain.
- Oh, okay, it's all
starting to come into focus.
And it becomes more and more clear
as Ben is pushed even further
on the impact of history
on the status of Black
people's lives today,
and the range of options
that are available to them.
- But if your grandfather
wasn't ahead, didn't get ahead,
if your grandfather
was in and out of jail,
if your father was in and out of jail,
everyone around you was like that.
If there's literally no influence
that's positive in your life,
the idea of saying to a kid like that,
"Hey, don't pick up a
gun and shoot somebody,"
that's way too simplistic
a version of this future
in my opinion.
- The problem is I don't
see an alternative solution.
- Som at this point, essentially,
Ben has completely acknowledged
that our nation's history of racism
has an immense impact on
Black people's lives today.
But he very quickly pivots to,
"I don't see an alternative solution."
Perfect Ben impression.
This is where he wanted
to go a long time ago.
And here's where we start to
get to the heart of the matter.
Because, obviously, there are
tons of alternative solutions
to the problems of racial inequality.
And to his credit, our very,
very, very imperfect avatar
proposes some of those
alternative solutions.
- I think an alternative solution is,
there has to be some sort
of large scale intervention
in these communities,
to do something about what
has already been set in motion
and the momentum that keeps
continuing decade after decade.
And I don't know what could be done...
- But that's the problem.
Is that I think that
a lot of the solutions
that have been proposed
have already been tried.
Okay, so for example, LBJ thought
that the way to alleviate
a lot of these inequalities
was the war on poverty.
And he openly talked about this.
He gave a speech very
famously, in which he said,
"We're trying to guarantee
equality of outcome,
"not just equality of
opportunity, equality of outcome.
"And you can't hold the race
"where somebody is
starting 20 yards behind,
"and then fire the gun and
say, okay, it's an equal race."
Right?
So you have to get the
person who's 20 yards behind
to actually get up to the starting line
so that they're equal.
And so the idea was,
we're going to fight this war on poverty
and alleviate poverty, largely
through transfer payments
and and through the government
taking a forcible step
in favor of alleviating people's lives.
- Okay, first of all Ben,
you are using the word
alleviate far too much.
But thank you for your very
accurate history lesson.
And thank you for carting out
the often used right-wing
reactionary boogeyman;
the horrific idea that the left
doesn't just want equality of opportunity,
but equality of outcome.
Muhahahahaha.
First of all, Ben likes to view
the idea of equality of outcome,
as meaning that like everyone
gets to go to Harvard Law,
as opposed to the idea
that like maybe everyone
should have basic necessities
like food and shelter.
But also, let's take a look
at what LBJ actually said
at the Howard University
commencement address
that Ben is directly referencing.
In June of 1965, LBJ states,
"Freedom is not enough.
"You do not wipe away the
scars of centuries by saying,
"'Now you are free to go where you want,
"'and do as you desire, and
choose the leaders you please.'
"You do not take a person who, for years,
"has been hobbled by
chains and liberate him,
"bring him up to the starting
line of a race and then say,
"'You are free to compete
with all the others,'
"and still justly believe
"that you have been completely fair."
The race, like in that
other episode we did.
He went on to say,
"We seek not just freedom but opportunity.
"We seek not just legal
equity but human ability.
"Not just equality as
a right and a theory,
"but equality as a fact,
and equality as a result."
And then immediately after this speech,
President Lyndon Baines Johnson
signed The Reparations Act of 1965,
which used large transfer payments
to level the playing
field for every American.
But it just didn't work,
it was a total failure.
I heard they spent all the
free money they got on drugs.
Wait,
that didn't happen, of course it didn't.
What are these transfer payments
that supposedly happened during
Johnson's war on poverty?
The only reference we could find
was an unsourced Wikipedia entry
that came up when you google
the term equality of outcome and LBJ.
Now, if you know what the
hell he's talking about,
and I mean this sincerely,
please comment and let us know.
Is he talking about
like Welfare in general?
Because that started in 1935 under FDR.
Is he talking about tax breaks?
We couldn't figure it out.
And I don't want to smear Ben,
but I'm fairly certain that he got this,
LBJ did transfer payments
that didn't work out, fact,
from, again, an unsourced Wikipedia entry
that comes up when you Google the term
equality of outcome and LBJ.
And as Daniel Geray of
the Atlantic writes,
"Distracted by the Vietnam War,
"Johnson never followed up his
stirring rhetoric at Howard
"with significant new policies."
But, in terms of what Johnson did do,
in the short time he was
able to implement policies
in his War on Poverty and in
pursuit of the Great Society
were programs like Medicare
and Medicaid and food stamps.
The food stamp program, now know as SNAP,
kept about 7.3 million people
out of poverty in 2016.
Today, Medicaid provides healthcare
for one in five Americans.
And it would cover thousands
more if the 13 remaining states
who have decided to deny
their most vulnerable citizens healthcare,
would simply opt in to Medicaid expansion
under the Affordable Care Act.
Before Medicare came into existence,
only about half of Americans over age 65
had health insurance.
Now, just an idea,
but maybe we should do that for everybody.
And as far as the impact
that these policies had
on racial equality,
consider the fact that
the racial wealth gap
started decreasing dramatically
after Johnson era policies took hold,
and only started increasing again
when Nixon era policies came into effect,
and then significantly increased again
when Ronald Reagan came into office.
A person who demonized
the role of government
and racialized social
services such as welfare,
and cut the funding for Social Security,
Medicaid, Food Stamps,
and federal education programs
during his Presidency​
I now understand why you think
that he was the greatest
President of your lifetime, Ben.
And this neoliberal ideology,
an obsession with budget deficits,
except when it comes to
the military or tax cuts
for the rich of course,
and the notion that poverty is a result
of individual character flaws
in order to justify massive
cuts to the social safety net,
has become wholly adopted
by the Republican party.
And many of the basic
contours of this ideology,
admittedly to a lesser extent,
have become accepted premises
to many in the Demorcratic party as well.
Consider the fact
that former President
Bill Clinton, rapist,
signed The Personal Responsibilities
and The Work Opportunity Act.
Love that name, Bill,
personal responsibility,
the guy is great.
Which he bragged would end welfare
as we have come to know it,
which greatly shrank the number of people
who qualified for the program.
And perhaps you remember the negotiations
of The Grand Bargain under the
Obama administration in 2011,
when a large contingent
of the Democratic party
agreed to historic cuts
in the social safety net
in exchange for an increase
of taxes on the wealthy.
And my point is, the War on Poverty
never really actually happened.
And Ben's specific example,
literally did not happen.
So Ben, are you lying,
or stupid, or both?
And are there any other possible solutions
for addressing racial inequality
that you want to lie about?
- And this is not really a money problem.
It really is not a money problem
in just terms of you could sign
everybody a check tomorrow,
Right?
So the predicate for the
slavery reparations movement
is exactly this; sign
everybody a $80,000 check
and the problem will be alleviated.
- Okay, Ben, just a
note, it's the same one,
you are still using the
word alleviate too much.
I would recommend a thesaurus.
You could use the words like lessened
or relieved, assuaged, that's a good one,
makes you sound smart.
But also... shut the (beep)
up, you are full of (beep).
First of all, it doesn't
matter whether or not
reparations would alleviate
racial inequality.
If a debt is owed, it is owed.
And it is definitely owed.
Are you like the "Game of
Thrones" duck whose like,
"A Lannister always pays his debts,
"unless it won't alleviate
racial inequality."
Second of all, your proclamation
that this is not a money problem
is completely ahistorical,
very big surprise.
We've actually tested this
theory with white people.
We subsidized the purchase
of homes for white people,
we provided free education
for white people,
we literally gave away 10%
of all land in this
country to white people.
And so we actually know
that literally giving free stuff to people
increases their wealth,
improves their lives
and the lives of their descendants,
which is frankly a pretty obvious concept.
So, what's the problem, Ben?
What is so different about Black people?
- The biggest obstacle to young Black kids
growing up in the inner city, again,
is not history, it is in the moment;
the drugs, the crime, the
fact that there are no fathers
in a lot of these areas.
Roland Fryer, a Black
professor at Harvard,
he's done excellent work showing
that actually the number one
factor in allowing kids to rise
is not even having a father in the home,
it's how many fathers there
are generally in a community.
- So here, Ben and I find a
rare moment of tepid agreement.
It iS a major problem that we have
a lack of male father figures
in the Black community.
Though I suspect that we might have
a different understanding for
the cause of this problem,
and very different solutions
to alleviate this problem.
What is your solution, Ben?
- Let's simplify this, if we can.
A Ben Shapiro is the king of the world,
how do you fix Baltimore?
How do you fix Detroit?
How do you fix the Southside of Chicago?
- Okay, so, here's the unpopular view
but it happens to be empirically correct.
The first thing you have to do
is you have to load the place of police.
- Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!
Ben, that's the exact wrong solution
to the biggest problem
plaguing Black communities.
In fact, that's the exact cause
of the biggest problem
plaguing black communities.
For a little context,
the US has less than 5%
of the world's population,
but 20% of the world's
incarcerated people.
In 2003, the Bureau of
Justice Statistics estimated
that Black men have a one in three chance
of going to federal or state
prison in their lifetimes.
Right now, Black people are
12.7% of the population,
but 38.2% of the prison population.
And also right now,
nearly 40% of the U.S. prison population,
576,000 people are behind bars
with no compelling public safety reason.
And so, if your main
concern is public safety
and making sure communities
have male role models,
the worst possible solution
you would come up with
is to load the place with police.
Because studies have shown that,
when large numbers of parent-aged
adults, especially men,
cycle through stays in prison
and jail at very high rates,
communities are negatively
affected in myriad ways,
including damage to social networks,
social relationships, and
long-term life chances.
These effects impair
children, family functioning,
mental and physical health, labor markets,
and economic and
political infrastructures.
So what's really going on here, Ben?
I think it might be worth-while
to examine one of the rare
discussions Ben recently had
with a person that has very
different views from Ben,
and with a bit more policy
and historical literacy than Joe Rogan.
A few Months ago, Ben
sat down with Ezra Klein,
and he wasn't able to
slip through his lies
about the viability and
efficacy of specific policies,
because he knew those
arguments would get shut down.
And so he finally had to admit
what was really going on.
- Let me ask you this
question just straightforward.
- Sure.
- Why is it that if you are
the head of a household,
African American household,
and you have a job, full time job,
you're gonna have a lower
net wealth on average
than the head of a white
household who is unemployed?
Or similarly, if you're the head
of an African American household,
you have a college degree,
you're likely to have a lower net worth
than a white household headed by somebody
who dropped out of high school?
That is speaking to something
that has happened historically, right?
Wealth is an intergenerational transfer,
at some point, if you want
society to be even roughly equal,
you're gonna have to do something
about that interational justice.
- Or, alternatively, the idea of equality
would be that everyone is
treated equally under the law,
and not differentially by race
or based on past discrimination.
- That is one idea of equality.
- Well, this is correct.
And this is why when you
say why we're polarized,
and the implication is
that we are polarized
because of tribal identity.
The real reason I think
that we're polarized
is because there are two very
different visions of the world
than how the government ought
to operate in that world.
- This is very interesting Ben.
During this entire conversation
that you've had with Joe Rogan,
you have been claiming
that racial equality
can only be achieved by Black people
making better decisions.
You've been arguing that,
alternative solutions that have
been tried just didn't work
on a measurable and factual level.
But now that you can't
get away with those lies,
you are talking about
some sort of ideology.
What is this ideology?
- I do not think that
society or government
is in a place to achieve
equality of outcome,
nor do I think that the attempt to,
in tomatillos phrase, to
achieve cosmic justice
is something that is either
possible or desirable
from the government.
- When you say we can't achieve,
I can totally buy the argument
that you don't want it to,
or that you think would be unfair.
But I think there's a very different
that is important to keep in mind
between cannot and should not.
- Interesting question Ben.
Do you think that the government
cannot achieve racial equality?
Or do you believe that it should not
try to achieve racial equality?
And if it is should not try
to achieve racial equality,
why not?
- The founding argument
for better or for worse,
the founding argument, I
think very much for better.
Is that there are
certain individual rights
that preexists government,
and the government was instituted
to protect those individual rights,
and that a government that
surpasses those individual rights
ceases to act as a function
of its original mandate, and
therefore is illegitimate.
- And so, sorry we took
so long to get here,
but this is the main point.
In fact, it's pretty
much all you need to know
about Ben Shapiro.
Because all the lies
and misrepresentations
that he spouts about facts,
all work in service of
justifying his ideology,
which he holds based on his feelings.
It is just so hilariously ironic
that the person whose catchphrase is,
facts don't care about your feelings,
embodies the exact opposite phenomenon.
Because if you believe that a government
that does anything
beyond protecting individual
rights is illegitimate,
that doesn't leave a whole lot
of room for the government,
which is supposed to be
responsible for we the people,
to do pretty much anything at all.
It certainly doesn't allow for
it to do anything meaningful
about addressing racial inequality,
which he has even admitted
is at least in some measure
due to historic injustice.
And if you think I am cherry-picking,
here's how Ben justifies
his belief, his feeling,
that a man and a woman do a
better job of raising a child
than a gay couple,
despite the facts not
supporting that belief.
- Okay, you have these
religious principles,
is there any justification
outside of the Bible says so
for why this is correct?
And as a religious person
who's actually thought
through his positions,
I tend to believe there is.
As a religious person,
I believe that God didn't
create stupid rules.
So if you believe that God
didn't create stupid rules,
then you have to come up with
some sort of justification
for the rules that are being expressed.
- Right there, Ben is saying
that since he believes in the Bible
and has faith that God
didn't create stupid rules,
then he has to create
his own justification
outside of the Bible for why he's right.
In other words, he's
starting from a conclusion
based on his feelings,
and then finding facts that support it.
Holy (beep).
Look at that shiny sexy
set-up we used to have.
Oh, in the before times when
we used to film these episodes
with an actual camera,
and other human people used
to help us make this show.
Now I'm stuck with my
awful wife, Mr. Masky,
who will not shut up about wearing her...
Though we're trying to work through it.
More importantly,
I think you can see
the basic problem here.
Whether Ben is working backwards
from his beliefs about religion,
or working backwards from his beliefs
about the role of government,
Ben is constructing a false
narrative, also known as lying,
about the facts,
in order to validate
and justify his beliefs
and his feelings.
Unfortunately for Ben,
it turns out that facts
have a liberal bias,
and Ben's deceit is nothing new.
For decades, what we now call Think Tanks,
had a largely non-partisan
goal of gathering data
to assist law makers.
In the 1970s when conservatives realized
that this objective data suggested
that progressive policies
would be best suited
to address the main issues
affecting the American people,
conservatives decided to
fundamentally change this dynamic
by Instead of using data
to inform their policies,
having the think tanks
they support work backwards
from their preferred policies,
by distorting the facts
in order to support their
ideological positions.
This is why, right now, the
GOP has had so much trouble
getting their (beep) together
to make sure that people don't starve
or become homeless because of a pandemic.
Because they are ideologically opposed
to the idea of the
Government helping people.
Ben is nothing new,
he spouts the same old talking
points just on YouTube.
Because, if a government
that does anything beyond
protecting individual rights,
as Ben states, is illegitimate,
reparations are illegitimate,
LBJ's war on poverty is illegitimate.
Under Ben's ideology, any
attempt by a democracy
to alleviate the impact
of overtly racist policies
of the past or seek to
achieve racial equality today,
are illegitimate.
The data doesn't matter,
the efficacy doesn't matter,
the facts don't actually matter,
if the very idea
of doing any of these
things is illegitimate.
Addressing racial inequality
is entirely incompatible
with Ben's ideology.
So why don't you just
(beep) say that, man?
Instead of lying about
whether or not it's possible
to achieve racial equality
through investments in Black communities,
just say you're not actually
interested in doing that.
Just be honest Ben and admit
that you don't actually care
about achieving racial equality.
Stop pretending.
We see you Ben, we see through your lies,
we see through your deception
and fallacies and equivocations.
Just say it.
Stop cosplaying as a figure
that gives a (beep) about equality.
You don't.
Your lies are obvious and easily
debunked, so just admit it.
Admit who you truly are deep down.
It will set you free, Ben.
Tell us the truth, Ben.
Give into your feelings.
Fulfill your destiny!
- The truth is that what makes
the Star Wars universe interesting
is the dark side of the force.
- Well, I'm sorry Ben,
but I choose the light side of the force.
I choose love!
Not now!
(upbeat music)
Also, wear a mask.
Where are we?
That episode's over, wasn't
it an episode of the show?
Thanks for watching, and liking subscribe,
Ben, who I'm speaking directly to.
And we've got a Patreon, some more news,
we've got another podcast
called Even More News,
you can check out.
We've got so many links
in the description,
and so many other things to
talk about in the future,
Ben, who is you.
All right, see you.
