Gary Younge interviews Richard Spencer for Channel 4 News - General

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rh1dhur4aI[/video] maybe getting rocked so hard just fucked up his nazi brain even more and that's why he spouts all this dumb bullshit?

[QUOTE=Tudd;52867809]I thought it was kind of a lackluster debate from both sides and just a spontaneous meetup to spout quips/zingers. Not really sure if this accomplished either side's objective since I can already imagine alt-righters think this is a win for them sadly.[/QUOTE] Quip: noun; a witty remark. Zinger: noun; a striking or amusing remark. Neither quips nor zingers: Blacks benefit from white supremacy, blacks didn't build America, America is not your home [editline]8th November 2017[/editline] You say Spencer "did weak here" but you also revile Spencer and what he stands for. This is interesting because it implies you find arguments he has made in the past to be more convincing, just not more convincing to you specifically. Do you have links to these? You can PM them to me if you genuinely hold your stance against giving him exposure.

I'm surprised anyone can see Richard Spencer as anything other than a neo-nazi since this speech was recorded last year. [video=youtube;1o6-bi3jlxk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6-bi3jlxk[/video] nazi salutes, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lying_press"]Lügenpresse,[/URL] "hail trump!, hail our people!, hail victory!" I don't know what to say if you still feel that he is someone who should represent your ideals

This was a very frustrating video to watch. Younge's constant interruptions didn't allow Spencer to explain his points to allow them to be deconstructed properly. This wasn't an interview or a debate. Verbally suppressing these loons doesn't make their ideas go away, it entrenches them and makes them look like victims which rallies more support around them. Obviously Spencer is saying things that are clearly inflammatory, but rising to that and acting as outrageous as him doesn't create any sort of central resolution.

[QUOTE=srobins;52868210]I always disliked Tudd for enabling alt-right memery and supporting a treasonous president, but I didn't realize he was just a straight up Nazi apologist dunce until this thread. Spencer was made to look like the fool he really is, he's a man of confidence in place of substance. He sounds more intelligent than your average knuckle-dragging racist but can't back any of it up. His responses to everything were basically "I'm right because I say so", i.e. "wouldn't Africa be better if their natives weren't abused and enslaved for hundreds of years? [I]Durr I don't think so![/I]" and "you don't get to tell me whether or not I'm an Englishman. [I]My name Richard!![/I]". Fuck you Tudd.[/QUOTE] If you think I am trying to support Spencer than you clearly can't understand what I am actually saying or just willfully acting like I'm evil in some way.

[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;52869249]Obviously Spencer is saying things that are clearly inflammatory, but rising to that and [B]acting as outrageous as him[/B] doesn't create any sort of central resolution.[/QUOTE] The radical centrist meme is an inescapable reality now How are they equally outrageous when one is saying [QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;52867962]Richard Spencer: "Slavery helped slaves. I'm proud of slavery. Black people didn't build America because white people made them build it. You're not British. I'm the ultimate arbitrator of your nationality."[/quote] And the other is saying [quote]Younge: "I cant even debate with that insanity."[/QUOTE] How are they equal?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52869172]Quip: noun; a witty remark. Zinger: noun; a striking or amusing remark. Neither quips nor zingers: Blacks benefit from white supremacy, blacks didn't build America, America is not your home [editline]8th November 2017[/editline] You say Spencer "did weak here" but you also revile Spencer and what he stands for. This is interesting because it implies you find arguments he has made in the past to be more convincing, just not more convincing to you specifically. Do you have links to these? You can PM them to me if you genuinely hold your stance against giving him exposure.[/QUOTE] I don't support Spencer's position at all, but his usual college speeches are like a rodeo for him where it is obvious he is more prepared. The Texas A&M one is an example of that. I mean really if people on here are going to just accuse me of supporting Spencer because I point out objectively racists are still going to think he won through to their optics, then I don't think the conversation on here is going to be that productive. As simple as I can get, put the shoe on the other foot and through the optics of a racist they will enjoy Spencer's points and zingers and ignore Younges likewise statements. Not much was accomplished here. [editline]8th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Mobon1;52868230]Fair enough, I know very little about Tudd's character outside of the mass hatred that follows him and felt sympathetic here since it seemed he was behaving okay enough.[/QUOTE] Srobins fails to mention that there is a difference between upholding the law of freedom of speech even for people you greatly dislike and being smart with your own actions to just not show up to this guy's speeches and ignoring him. It is entirely consistent and I would appreciate if Srobin actually provided examples of my posts that contradict each other instead of his exaggeration of a narrative.

[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;52869249]This was a very frustrating video to watch. Younge's constant interruptions didn't allow Spencer to explain his points to allow them to be deconstructed properly. This wasn't an interview or a debate. Verbally suppressing these loons doesn't make their ideas go away, it entrenches them and makes them look like victims which rallies more support around them. Obviously Spencer is saying things that are clearly inflammatory, but rising to that and acting as outrageous as him doesn't create any sort of central resolution.[/QUOTE] Younge interrupted him because if you don't nail people like Spencer down to a concise talking point, they infinitesimally divide that point into smaller and less relevant arguments until you just can't prove all of their arguments wrong notice how Spencer tries to tie slavery to other American accomplishments ("i embrace all of it!") for example. you ask him what exactly that means in the context of slavery, and suddenly he's talking about American culture and the attack it's under and how he's proud to represent it - anything but his endorsement of slavery. [I]that's[/I] how they get you to act as "outrageous" as they do, they take individual words and questions and expand them into non-sequitur arguments that are entirely beside the point and exist to both make you look overwhelmed and give them an easy way out. if you don't realize that early in the argument [I]then[/I] you're playing their game.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52869347]The radical centrist meme is an inescapable reality now How are they equally outrageous when one is saying And the other is saying How are they equal?[/QUOTE] In Northern Ireland we didn't reach peace by not engaging with inflammatory ideas. Sinn Fein literally supported the IRA's campaign of violence for political gains, actual terrorists, and the DUP had members with ties to the UVF who had kidnapped or killed Irish nationalists. Both sides were still able to forge a political settlement, despite being at diametrically opposite ends of the political spectrum. Part of the concessions of the Good Friday Agreement were the freeing of IRA prisoners. Spencer's ideas of racial superiority go beyond that sort of compromise, but engaging with these ideas that are diametrically opposite to any sort of rational thinking allows for them to be deconstructed and shown to his followers and those that could sympathise with him that they have no basis in reality. Constantly interrupting him and not offering a counter hypothesis to his reasoning garners him more sympathy. You can't get rid of these destructive ideas in a shouting match without addressing the real causes. This is how you end up with the misinformation that allows for Spencer's type of thinking to propagate, because the absence of real dialogue allows for agenda driven information to slip in.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52869363]I don't support Spencer's position at all, but his usual college speeches are like a rodeo for him where it is obvious he is more prepared. The Texas A&M one is an example of that. I mean really if people on here are going to just accuse me of supporting Spencer because I point out objectively racists are still going to think he won through to their optics, then I don't think the conversation on here is going to be that productive. As simple as I can get, put the shoe on the other foot and through the optics of a racist they will enjoy Spencer's points and zingers and ignore Younges likewise statements. Not much was accomplished here. [editline]8th November 2017[/editline] Srobins fails to mention that there is a difference between upholding the law of freedom of speech and being smart with your own actions to just not show up to this guy's speeches and ignoring him. It is entirely consistent.[/QUOTE] Yet again: not much was achieved for people who can't see slavery for the abhorrent thing it is. If you are that far gone that you see "We enslaved you, the credit is ours" and "You're a ridiculous person for saying that" as equal arguments, you are a moron and a racist. If someone is unable to apply logic and reason to a situation as clear-cut as this, it's nonsense to claim they'd be swayed by further logic and reason. This interview reaches the middle-of-the-road folk, the people who have heard of Spencer and wondered if he's as bad as people say, the people who might be swayed towards his side but still hold an inkling of common sense. But you're too detached from reality to see people as people. To you, everyone is either an ally or an enemy, which is why you constantly go out of your way to take the side of Nazis and racists (that, and the fact you're one of them)

[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;52869388]In Northern Ireland we didn't reach peace by not engaging with inflammatory ideas. Sinn Fein literally supported the IRA's campaign of violence for political gains, actual terrorists, and the DUP had members with ties to the UVF who had kidnapped or killed Irish nationalists. Both sides were still able to forge a political settlement, despite being at diametrically opposite ends of the political spectrum. Part of the concessions of the Good Friday Agreement were the freeing of IRA prisoners. Spencer's ideas of racial superiority go beyond that sort of compromise, but engaging with these ideas that are diametrically opposite to any sort of rational thinking allows for them to be deconstructed and shown to his followers and those that could sympathise with him that they have no basis in reality. Constantly interrupting him and not offering a counter hypothesis to his reasoning garners him more sympathy. You can't get rid of these destructive ideas in a shouting match without addressing the real causes. This is how you end up with the misinformation that allows for Spencer's type of thinking to propagate, because the absence of real dialogue allows for agenda driven information to slip in.[/QUOTE] but these people won't even allow you to engage these ideas unless you trap them. Trump for example used his opposition to Islamic fundamentalism as an argument as to why LGBT people should vote for him, purely so he could talk about refugees instead of LGBT rights. [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/742771576039460864[/media] if you don't immediately tell him to shut his trap when he tries to substitute a stance on Islam for a stance on LGBT rights, [I]he will not answer the question and you can't challenge his ideas.[/I] it's not discourse if the answer-giver controls the questions too.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52869397]Yet again: not much was achieved for people who can't see slavery for the abhorrent thing it is. If you are that far gone that you see "We enslaved you, the credit is ours" and "You're a ridiculous person for saying that" as equal arguments, you are a moron and a racist. If someone is unable to apply logic and reason to a situation as clear-cut as this, it's nonsense to claim they'd be swayed by further logic and reason. This interview reaches the middle-of-the-road folk, the people who have heard of Spencer and wondered if he's as bad as people say, the people who might be swayed towards his side but still hold an inkling of common sense. But you're too detached from reality to see people as people. To you, everyone is either an ally or an enemy, which is why you constantly go out of your way to take the side of Nazis and racists [b](that, and the fact you're one of them)[/b][/QUOTE] And this is why were never going to have a productive conversation. A horrible accusation with nothing to base it on. Again, Younge win's by default position of not supporting slavery, but imagine yourself as a racist and they will think Spencer won. If you cannot think in another person's POV, then that is a failure in your ability to understand/argue from an objective position. As for this is the middle of the road people: 1. It isn't even clear if there is such a thing with a topic like slavery; Which is why I give Younge credit for tackling that. And 2. If there truly was, then this interview won't do much for them besides maybe look up Richard Spencer abit more with how short it was.

Why would people on the fence look up to Spencer after he just outed himself as a thoughtless mongrel? Yes, people who are dyed in the wool fucking racists aren't going to change their mind because Younge said things that were smart and on point. But who fucking cares if you don't convince them. There people who literally believe factually untrue things with the veracity of "truth" on their side. It's why people like you are so divisive. We're operating on different sets of facts. There's a point to a debate. It isn't to change Spencers mind. It isn't to change the dyed in the wool racists or the reasonable people who know slavery is bad. It's literally about the fence sitters, and if a fence sitter heard what Spencer said and was swayed by it, then they'd be swayed by the wind pushing them into a mindset. You can't stop them from being stupid. Younge put up a reasonable argument and defense, and let Spencer out himself as a total fucking tool to the people on the "fence". But you're not here to argue he looks like a fool, you're here to argue that he actually looks smart. Which, even if I try and see the perspective of a fence sitter, I can't do it. Because he doesn't.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52869480]And this is why were never going to have a productive conversation. A horrible accusation with nothing to base it on. Again, Younge win's by default position of not supporting slavery, but imagine yourself as a racist and they will think Spencer won. If you cannot think in another person's POV, then that is a failure in your ability to understand/argue from an objective position. As for this is the middle of the road people: 1. It isn't even clear if there is such a thing with a topic like slavery; Which is why I give Younge credit for tackling that. And 2. If there truly was, then this interview won't do much for them besides maybe look up Richard Spencer abit more with how short it was.[/QUOTE] I like how you pretend to be a fence sitter who wants to look from both sides but you literally only look through a lens of racism and hate.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52869646]I like how you pretend to be a fence sitter who wants to look from both sides but you literally only look through a lens of racism and hate.[/QUOTE] I think you are conflating terms now. I am not a fence sitter at all. I have opposed people like Richard Spencer far more than most people through my studies on the Holocaust and having worked at a Holocaust Museum myself. In no point am I 'Fence-sitting" which implies I would accept Spencer's view if he would only convince me. What I am doing is point out how objectively this interview accomplished very little and racists on his side will still tout it as a victory since their optics are already so biased towards him. As for actual fence-sitters that might exist, I really don't know if this video does much for them on either side. I hope it pushes them to Younge, but being a fence-sitter on a topic like slavery is hard to imagine in 2017, which is why I credit Younge for going to that topic atleast.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52869646]I like how you pretend to be a fence sitter who wants to look from both sides but you literally only look through a lens of racism and hate.[/QUOTE] I like how he's been pretending to not at all adhere to Spencer's ideologies despite associating himself with the alt-right (a movement Spencer has named and helms), which he also of course claims he doesn't do at all. And his strongest defense as of late is that he took an online test that scored him as neoliberal.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52869699]I think you are conflating terms now. I am not a fence sitter at all. I have opposed people like Richard Spencer far more than most people through my studies on the Holocaust and having worked at a Holocaust Museum myself. In no point am I 'Fence-sitting" which implies I would accept Spencer's view if he would only convince me. What I am doing is point out how objectively this interview accomplished very little and racists on his side will still tout it as a victory since their optics are already so biased towards him. As for actual fence-sitters that might exist, I really don't know if this video does much for them on either side. I hope it pushes them to Younge, but being a fence-sitter on a topic like slavery is hard to imagine in 2017, which is why I credit Younge for going to that topic atleast.[/QUOTE] So it's basically just your personal opinion that Younge didn't do enough to change your mind about slavery and racism? I mean I can't really see what you're doing here, Younge doesn't have to respond to every stupid fuck point Spencer makes.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52869768] And his strongest defense as of late is that he took an online test that scored him as neoliberal.[/QUOTE] More of a joke on discord and not an actual testament of defense. It is actually kind of silly with the neoliberal outcome hence the "lol". Also no matter how much you try, I am not a Richard Spencer supporter. Your baseless accusations are quite repetitive nowadays. [editline]8th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tetracycline;52869777]So it's basically just your personal opinion that Younge didn't do enough to change your mind about slavery and racism? I mean I can't really see what you're doing here, Younge doesn't have to respond to every stupid fuck point Spencer makes.[/QUOTE] It isn't about changing minds; I am already on Younge's side. It is more that a very short interview didn't really go anywhere and do anything impactful.

[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;52869388]In Northern Ireland we didn't reach peace by not engaging with inflammatory ideas. Sinn Fein literally supported the IRA's campaign of violence for political gains, actual terrorists, and the DUP had members with ties to the UVF who had kidnapped or killed Irish nationalists. Both sides were still able to forge a political settlement, despite being at diametrically opposite ends of the political spectrum. Part of the concessions of the Good Friday Agreement were the freeing of IRA prisoners. Spencer's ideas of racial superiority go beyond that sort of compromise, but engaging with these ideas that are diametrically opposite to any sort of rational thinking allows for them to be deconstructed and shown to his followers and those that could sympathise with him that they have no basis in reality. Constantly interrupting him and not offering a counter hypothesis to his reasoning garners him more sympathy. You can't get rid of these destructive ideas in a shouting match without addressing the real causes. This is how you end up with the misinformation that allows for Spencer's type of thinking to propagate, because the absence of real dialogue allows for agenda driven information to slip in.[/QUOTE] Man, I don't even disagree with what you're saying, I just think you need to be more cognizant of the context. We, who like debating on the internet like the filth we are, tend to think of the ultimate form of debate as one where we only look at ideas. Maybe that IS the perfect attitude to have, but it's not the attitude the majority of the population will use on a day-to-day basis, outside of a debate class. Furthermore, it requires a mutual agreement, one that Spencer clearly wanted no part of. Younge could've tried to keep it purely in the realm of ideas, and Spencer would've stuck with blurring lines and obfuscating the argument like Cone explained, because he has no interest in an honest exchange, only in one-upping his opponent. So yes, please, do engage with people. Put yourself in their shoes, no matter how messed up you think their views are. Like I always say, you can't solve a problem you can't understand. At the same time, realize that people are nuanced and complicated, and just because we strive for exchanges purely based on ideas, doesn't mean everyone else is, too. Some people will strive to take feelings, image, tone and intent into account, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that as long as both parties are on the same page. Spencer uses it, and Younge is within reason to use it, too. Had this been a different argument (without Spencer's dishonesty), in a different context (not in a TV interview), maybe we'd get that perfect form, where arguments are deconstructed and sincere dialogue is achieved. But we didn't, and it's unreasonable to blame Younge for it, IMO

[QUOTE=Tudd;52869781]More of a joke on discord and not an actual testament of defense. It is actually kind of silly with the neoliberal outcome hence the "lol". Also no matter how much you try, I am not a Richard Spencer supporter. Your baseless accusations are quite repetitive nowadays. [editline]8th November 2017[/editline] It isn't about changing minds; I am already on Younge's side. It is more that a very short interview didn't really go anywhere and do anything impactful.[/QUOTE] I really think you're being overly pedantic. You watch Steven Crowder videos yet give us this kind of bullshit for a video of a neo-nazi getting beaten in an argument?

[QUOTE=Cone;52869383]Younge interrupted him because if you don't nail people like Spencer down to a concise talking point, they infinitesimally divide that point into smaller and less relevant arguments until you just can't prove all of their arguments wrong notice how Spencer tries to tie slavery to other American accomplishments ("i embrace all of it!") for example. you ask him what exactly that means in the context of slavery, and suddenly he's talking about American culture and the attack it's under and how he's proud to represent it - anything but his endorsement of slavery. [I]that's[/I] how they get you to act as "outrageous" as they do, they take individual words and questions and expand them into non-sequitur arguments that are entirely beside the point and exist to both make you look overwhelmed and give them an easy way out. if you don't realize that early in the argument [I]then[/I] you're playing their game.[/QUOTE] It's very similar to how the Trump posters on the forums, except the ones here spend even more time arguing semantics and trying to win battles like the meaning of the words they're using rather than reality itself or trying to equate nazis to, y'know, not-nazis.

Could someone help me understand this White ethnostate concept Spencer seemed to hint at in the video? I mean if he wants to trace back people's ancestry and kick out everyone whose ancestors didn't live in the US at some point, surely he would need to kick out everyone that isn't Native American? Did I misunderstand his train of thought or did he punch a loophole for White people in his own logic?

Guys Tudd's argument is: the things that Spencer said were amazing zingers [B]for a Spencer supporter[/B] (and argument #2) and[B] it will not change their mind[/B]. He's not saying they were great zingers for him. And Tudd, changing Spencer's opinion or changing the opinion of people who already think in the same exact way as Spencer, was not the point of this. And of course they will not change their mind over a short clip like this. You are stating the obvious. Also you are putting the "fence-sitters" on the framework of slavery, when it should be about being on a fence about Spencer. If you are one of the people who think, "Gee I keep hearing about this Spencer guy maybe I should look him up" and you stumble on this video, you will nope the fuck out of that idea (unless you [B]already[/B] think like this). This video does a very good job at preventing people from being swayed into following Spencer. The fact that it won't do much for people who are already thinking like Spencer is obvious and beside the point, it wasn't for them. It's for people who are leaning in his direction and who can [B]potentially be gradually convinced [/B]by him and him-alike. It's sort of a "look where this ride gets you, better get out before you reach that point" type of a video.

[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;52869857]Could someone help me understand this White ethnostate concept Spencer seemed to hint at in the video? I mean if he wants to trace back people's ancestry and kick out everyone whose ancestors didn't live in the US at some point, surely he would need to kick out everyone that isn't Native American? Did I misunderstand his train of thought or did he punch a loophole for White people in his own logic?[/QUOTE] In [b]general[/b], the desired populace of the supremacist white ethnostate are people whose ancestry is predominantly Western European. German, English, Scandinavian, etc. In general, American supremacist white ethnostate doesn't mean "American" in a strict sense (because then, as you say, that'd be the Native Americans), but "American" in the colonial sense - which is to say, descendants of the Western Europeans that largely founded the initial colonies. I don't know if that's the populace that Spencer's white ethnostate calls for (I don't pay him or his rhetoric any mind), but I suspect it's along very similar lines.

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52869882]In [b]general[/b], the desired populace of the supremacist white ethnostate are people whose ancestry is predominantly Western European. German, English, Scandinavian, etc. In general, American supremacist white ethnostate doesn't mean "American" in a strict sense (because then, as you say, that'd be the Native Americans), but "American" in the colonial sense - which is to say, descendants of the Western Europeans that largely founded the initial colonies. I don't know if that's the populace that Spencer's white ethnostate calls for (I don't pay him or his rhetoric any mind), but I suspect it's along very similar lines.[/QUOTE] Yeah it's Western European descend. (I don't know what they think about slavs though :worried:) And he talks about "peaceful ethnic cleansing" where you """"peacefully"""" send black people to Africa. Of course "if you resist the government you will be treated like any other criminal". Or something like that.

I'm genuinely curious as to what the state of Africa would have been like had slavery not been such a prevalent issue, especially when you compare ancient civilizations like the Egyptians to the Greeks or Romans. If they were left to their own devices, or able to just share knowledge with the rest of the developed world much like we do at this point in time, I'm sure they'd have a true superpower of their own by now. Nigeria is on track to becoming the African equivalent of India, but there's obviously a clear distinction between countries like India, China, South Korea, and the US as examples. [editline]8th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;52869921]Interviewing a person like this spontaniously does much better against his cause than punching them on the street Why is it so hard for some people to realize that[/QUOTE] Because some people are way more willing to act on emotion rather than logic. The emotional reaction to seeing a Nazi is to punch them in the face, the logical thing to do is vocalize your issues with their ideals in such a way that they reconsider their outlook or viewpoint. It just becomes increasingly harder to do so when said person is constantly working to further entrench themselves in their own beliefs, because the people they don't like give them more reasons to believe what they do, as you mentioned the guy who sucker punched him is a great example of this. To defeat an ideology, you have to crush the principles that create the foundation for their movement. In this case, you have to eliminate all concept of "blacks benefited from slavery" and instead replace it with, "blacks would have benefited from not being slaves" as a counter point, just like Gary did with Richard. Basically, what I'm trying to say is, [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23X14HS4gLk][i][b]Don't be a sucker.[/i][/b][/url]

[QUOTE=Tudd;52869781]It is more that a very short interview didn't really go anywhere and do anything impactful.[/QUOTE] You know what would be impactful? Not supporting the cheeto that empowers their ideas and platform.

-just gonna snip-

[QUOTE=Tudd;52867809]I thought it was kind of a lackluster debate from both sides and just a spontaneous meetup to spout quips/zingers. Not really sure if this accomplished either side's objective since I can already imagine alt-righters think this is a win for them sadly.[/QUOTE] Only you could look at someone saying slavery wasn't beneficial to Africans and say it was just a zinger.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52869875]Guys Tudd's argument is: the things that Spencer said were amazing zingers [B]for a Spencer supporter[/B] (and argument #2) and[B] it will not change their mind[/B]. He's not saying they were great zingers for him. And Tudd, changing Spencer's opinion or changing the opinion of people who already think in the same exact way as Spencer, was not the point of this. And of course they will not change their mind over a short clip like this. You are stating the obvious. Also you are putting the "fence-sitters" on the framework of slavery, when it should be about being on a fence about Spencer. If you are one of the people who think, "Gee I keep hearing about this Spencer guy maybe I should look him up" and you stumble on this video, you will nope the fuck out of that idea (unless you [B]already[/B] think like this). This video does a very good job at preventing people from being swayed into following Spencer. The fact that it won't do much for people who are already thinking like Spencer is obvious and beside the point, it wasn't for them. It's for people who are leaning in his direction and who can [B]potentially be gradually convinced [/B]by him and him-alike. It's sort of a "look where this ride gets you, better get out before you reach that point" type of a video.[/QUOTE] I appreciate that you help lay it out and understand my position. What I am stating should be obvious, but it doesn't seem to be here. I can somewhat agree with your sentiment on the video, but I think that is the ideal outcome you would hope from an audience member. In my opinion, it largely depends on how many actual fence-sitters there are with Spencer and if they watch this video. [editline]8th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Paramud;52870924]Only you could look at someone saying slavery wasn't beneficial to Africans and say it was just a zinger.[/QUOTE] Please refer to Sil if you seem to have a hard time understanding my point.