https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=qs8lrhwUOF8
it matters much more, much more important than language policing, right? And permission structures of who’s allowed to say what is an orientation on people’s intentions and actual outcomes. And that’s one way you can assess the groups of people of whether someone’s going to be useful. If you roll up your sleeves and get in to actually get something done, whether that’s winning a race in Oklahoma, right? Or trying to talk in good faith and respectfully to voters in western Pennsylvania, it’s going to be messy. You have to, there’s no- Okay, if I describe that, what do you mean messy? Like what’s messy about it? We’ve talked a little bit about the psychological consequences of this, this kind of action, even these kinds of discussions. By messy, I mean good, meaning the further along I get with this, the more convinced I am that you cannot have a perfect conversation where everyone is contained and all the language goes seamlessly about race, about gender, and about class in America. And so when there’s too much constriction around language from the left and, or from the right, basically they’re barking around the perimeter of the fertile solutions. They’re barking around the perimeter to make sure that nobody can have the kinds of conversations that you need to have. You have to talk about those things imperfectly. You have to- So why would people be motivated to not allow that to happen, do you think? Well, because look, so for the, there’s different skews and everything is a generalization, right? So I’m going to generalize a little bit. I think that there’s, in the far right, we see a kind of corruption and ossification around sort of Donald Trump and what he represents, but he was saying things that hit people in a way that were things that they weren’t allowed to say. I have a whole bunch of theories about the Republicans. I’m going to keep it focused on my looking in the proverbial mirror. I think that a lot of the language policing of the left is actually a way to maintain the status quo. What status quo? And to whose advantage? Let’s say that you’re a rich Hollywood elite, much like me, right? Or somebody who is in the kinds of groups that I move in, that you move in, but let’s say further left of you like I am, or more, we’re both liberal, but if you can talk and have all of the lingo and know exactly what the permission structures are, and you say Latin X instead of Latino, and you do all this stuff, in a way what you’re doing is, you’re making sure that the conversations that are the real conversations that bring change, that are messier, don’t necessarily occur. But if you have all the language down, you can sort of maintain your position. So let’s say you’re a rich Hollywood elite, but if you have all the language down, you can sort of maintain your position and your money and your relative stature. So you can assume that if there was a solution that was being proposed, you’d be part of the solution and not part of the problem. You signal that with the language. But you’re also, you’re casting, like look, I’ll give you an example. I made a video about the, for me, I was exceedingly opposed from day one to messages of chaos from the Democratic party. Right. I think conservatives particularly have a reaction to chaos. I think they have a legitimate reaction when people announce sort of, you know, police free zones in Seattle and in Portland. And from day one, I was saying this whole notion of sanctuary cities doesn’t make sense to me for a variety of reasons. Let’s say we have the next president and people decide that voting rights are not going to be applied to in, you know, Birmingham, Alabama, right. And they’re going to be a sanctuary city for that. There’s all these complexities around it. I made some commercials about black leadership calling for a lack of violence in the protests. Keisha Lance bottom, the mayor of Atlanta gave a speech that I think was a speech with the most thundering moral authority that I’ve heard from a public figure when Atlanta was tearing itself apart. It’s extraordinary speech. I referenced, try to reference other people. The only blowback that I got from that was from incredibly affluent sort of coastal elite saying, how dare you selectively close, you know, African American people, decrying violence, you know, when they watch somebody get murdered and they’re protesting how they can. And it’s the epitome of white privilege. All this stuff. And what’s interesting is I’ve long thought that Trump works through projection, like Trump will everything with Trump that he that he makes as a claim for others. There’s a lot of projection that goes on. And I’ve increasingly seen that from aspects of the left where I thought, wow, how far do you have to be removed from the ramifications of violence to not be worried? Like how many houses and mansions and security guards and gated communities you have to have access to, to be unconcerned with violent action, whether that community is a community of color, right, whether it’s a white working class community to simply say violent protest is something that we’re not for. Like how dare you advocate that when you’re rich enough to never have to be there when the tourist violent protesters leave and the let’s say the black community is left there with the wreckage of their community. Like to be opposed to that message is basically saying, I want to keep letting people protest as loud as they want. It’s in a way that won’t ever affect me or my children aren’t at risk. My family’s not at risk. My house doesn’t feel at risk, but I’ll use all the right language so that I can be protected and sort of maintain all of that. And when you’re trying to wade in to really like win an election so that we don’t, you know, the African-American community doesn’t have to contend with another with more, I’ll call it more voter rights being thrown out, like real concrete issues. There’s real concrete issues there. But if you can chirp about something that’s a slogan like that, you don’t have to get into the real solutions or fixes. But at the same time, right, but you can, you can take on the, you can take on the assumed status of someone who’s actually working to solve the problem. I think a lot of that, a lot of politically correct language, I don’t know, I guess that would be language that’s in alignment with any given doctrine is an attempt to take on the moral virtues of that doctrine without necessarily having to bear any of the responsibility for actions in alignment with that doctrine or to bear any responsibility for the consequences.