ANDREW CHAPADOS ｜ DEBATE： Diversity in the military - John Doyle vs. Hunter Avallone ｜ Andrew Says 73
Summary
In this episode, we discuss the benefits of diversity in the military and why it should be prioritized in order to make it more effective. We're joined by commentator Hunter Avon to debate whether or not diversity is a good thing for the military.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
I'm saying that you can't accuse me of just kind of looking at things at face value when that's
00:00:05.320
actually what you're doing. You're gauging from your own experience and the fact that you talk
00:00:09.440
to some people here and there and then saying, well, that's just how it is. That's not just how
00:00:13.120
it is. So from your Googling, you have a better understanding of what the military is than people
00:00:18.380
who actually have done it. I don't have a better understanding of what it's like to be in the
00:00:21.300
military, but I absolutely have a better understanding in regards to the fact that
00:00:24.720
diversity benefits the military. Yes. Okay. No, no, no. I know you've got to get back to your
00:00:29.020
script. I understand that you have to get back to your script. Okay. But hold on. We're actually
00:00:32.180
talking now. Nobody actually thinks that your brain's operating at a higher level. I mean,
00:00:36.140
I'm thinking fast. I haven't been able to say a word. You've literally been just talking nonstop
00:00:40.780
and the non-biased mod isn't even helping at all. So I'm sorry, Hunter. I thought when I,
00:00:45.420
when I spoke earlier, I was being too biased. Okay, John, let's give Hunter a few minutes to talk.
00:00:55.180
Welcome back to Andrew says diversity is our strength. It's something we
00:00:58.980
hear a lot in this country, especially from our prime minister. He says it all the time.
00:01:02.500
And you've probably seen diversity, equity, and inclusion policies on job listings, at least a few
00:01:08.240
times in the past few years. Now, diversity is so important. In fact, that the government
00:01:12.760
recognizes gender or sexuality as some sort of accomplishment. It's why you see Kamala Harris
00:01:17.300
celebrated as both the first black and the first Indian vice president at the same time in different
00:01:22.440
articles. It's so important that it should be injected into the military as well. For some reason,
00:01:27.640
you've seen top US military officials talk about white rage. You've seen US army commercials.
00:01:33.900
They're a joke. We've also got the admiral who might be a man. We might be a woman. We're not sure
00:01:39.640
yet. Commentator Hunter Avon is another person who agrees with at least some of that. He's here to
00:01:46.120
rebuttal another video about the importance of diversity in the military. Interesting stuff.
00:01:51.480
Having women in the military is a massive benefit for the military. Diversity in the military is a
00:01:58.960
massive benefit for the military. For people like me who actually give a shit about having a strong
00:02:05.120
military and aren't as concerned about pushing some kind of insane fascistic agenda, I can recognize
00:02:11.220
that having diversity in the military provides more insights. It provides more abilities for people
00:02:19.440
to connect with certain civilians. So for example, having women in your military can help with women
00:02:26.760
talking to women civilians. Andrew, thanks for having me on today.
00:02:32.000
No, thank you for coming on. As I'm sure you're aware, it's not easy to get people who disagree to
00:02:36.600
come on to shows like this. So we definitely appreciate that. Now, the first thing I want to ask
00:02:40.760
you is, first off, I'll start by saying I'm not anti-diversity in any means. I just don't know how
00:02:45.620
diversity in and of itself is a benefit and something to strive for in terms of the military.
00:02:52.840
And we can talk about other things as well if you want, but this is basically what we talked about.
00:02:56.600
Explain what you mean. What do you mean by just diversity? Does it gender, sexuality, race,
00:03:01.080
all kinds? Can you please explain? Yeah, I think that diversity, really diverse identities at the
00:03:06.860
end of the day, whether it is race, gender, sexuality, all of that kind of plays a very significant
00:03:12.360
role in benefiting the military, specifically in the context of innovation. So when you have
00:03:21.580
a diverse group of people, you have a diverse group of backgrounds, essentially, you have more
00:03:26.860
ideas to pull from, and the innovation is crucial for the military's development and success, largely.
00:03:34.280
In fact, the military even has what's called the Army Ideas for Innovation Program,
00:03:38.140
where people who have ideas can come to this office and submit their ideas. And basically, by
00:03:45.120
having diverse people, whether they're gay or women or black or whatever, having a diverse group of
00:03:51.600
people contributes massively to innovation and thriving for the military, essentially.
00:03:57.900
Is there any example you can think of where that has been used to
00:04:00.980
make some sort of new technology, new way of fighting, or anything like that?
00:04:04.780
Yeah, so there's actually several different inventions that we use today, both in the military
00:04:10.220
and in our day-to-day life, that were invented by minorities or were a result of diversity. So for
00:04:17.080
example, Heidi Lamar, she invented what was called the frequency hopping communication system. And that was
00:04:25.800
used at the time for World War II, but now that invention is actually what fuels Wi-Fi, GPS, and
00:04:32.660
Bluetooth. So we all benefit from that technology, for example.
00:04:36.180
But how is that due specifically to their race or gender or some sort of diversity?
00:04:42.940
It's not like because she's a woman, that's why she came up with the idea. It's rather that
00:04:48.480
the more diversity you have, the more backgrounds you have, you avoid groupthink, and you're more likely
00:04:54.380
to achieve higher levels of innovation. I can give you some examples of private companies that
00:05:02.460
when they're focused on innovation, increases in racial diversity were related to enhanced financial
00:05:08.580
performance. So the more diverse groups of people you have, the less groupthink you have, and the
00:05:17.260
So are you in favor of hiring, let's say, having a quota for, let's say, women in the military? Or
00:05:24.800
in Canada, we have for native Canadians in the military. Are you in favor of quotas like that?
00:05:33.360
Yeah, I'm not so sure I'm in favor of like a quota, like you must have this amount of women.
00:05:38.260
I think that that tends to be pretty lame. And then you kind of leave out a lot of talent,
00:05:42.240
because I don't like the idea of hiring someone purely because they are a woman. But rather,
00:05:48.180
like what started this whole thing really was, John Doyle was kind of shitting on this idea of
00:05:53.980
diversity in the military. And then John Miller called me a retard for saying that diversity was
00:06:04.400
And yeah, he called me a retard. And I think that's how we got in contact to begin with,
00:06:08.320
is because I was posting about it. I don't remember exactly. But
00:06:11.980
I'm not really in favor of like a strict quota. But I'm also strongly against this idea that
00:06:17.940
there must only be like strong men in the military, because the military is made up of a lot more than
00:06:25.680
This is true. But I still, I'm still not able to identify how like, having this diversity as a point
00:06:33.380
to like, let's just say you've got 100 white guys or 100 black guys. I don't understand how having
00:06:38.920
an extra person of either category in a platoon makes them better fighters.
00:06:44.200
Well, you got to remember that only 10% of the military will ever even see fighting.
00:06:48.720
There's a lot more to the military than just fighting. So when I'm advocating for diversity
00:06:53.000
in the military, I don't necessarily mean that's diversity in the actual fighting aspect.
00:06:58.960
Obviously, women on average are weaker than men. So having more strong men on the front lines will
00:07:05.040
probably make more sense. But again, if we're talking about the behind the scenes shit, you know,
00:07:09.940
the analysis that's necessary, the different ideas that come up, the technology that's developed,
00:07:15.440
this all benefits from diversity. I can give you an example. So here was a study where they put
00:07:22.020
together three person groups, some consisting of all white members, other with two whites and one
00:07:27.940
non-white member. And they had them perform a murder mystery exercise. And to find out who
00:07:34.220
committed the murder, the group members would have to share all the information they collectively
00:07:37.880
possessed during the discussion. And excuse me, the groups with racial diversity significantly
00:07:44.080
outperformed the groups with no racial diversity. Being with similar others leads us to think we all
00:07:50.460
hold the same information and share the same perspective. This perspective, which stopped the
00:07:55.080
all white group from effectively processing the information, is what hinders creativity and innovation.
00:08:00.380
But what information was that somebody from a different race had that white people didn't have?
00:08:06.940
It's not that cut and dry. It's more so that when you have people of different backgrounds,
00:08:10.860
different experiences, they all bring something different to the table. And more groupthink leads
00:08:16.900
to lower rates of innovation. So if you have people that all look the same, even if it's not
00:08:21.060
intentionally, I'm not saying they're all like these evil racists or something, but it's just that
00:08:26.440
when people look the same as you, you tend to kind of think of them as holding the same ideas as you
00:08:32.600
as well. And that just leads to groupthink. It's not beneficial for the military. It's not beneficial
00:08:38.700
I think you're reading the conclusion of some sort of study without really being able to give the
00:08:42.880
examples of what's in it. But I was in the military. I don't recall any time. A couple of my best
00:08:49.380
friends in the army were African guys. There wasn't ever a time where any of us looked around and said,
00:08:54.580
we need more diversity. This is going to help us. And in fact, when you've got people in an armed
00:08:59.520
forces, when you come together from vastly different places, from the west coast of the
00:09:04.420
country, to the center, to the east, there aren't these racial thought lines that it seems like
00:09:10.320
you're pointing towards. Like I got friends from Alberta who live in the country and they think
00:09:15.520
completely different from the guys who live on the east coast in the maritimes here in Canada.
00:09:19.300
And that's partially diversity though. There's also diversity of thought.
00:09:23.700
But people of different identities bring different ideas as well. They have different
00:09:27.880
experiences. They contribute differently. Just like having diversity of thought from somebody
00:09:32.280
from Florida working together with somebody from California might have different ideas. It's not
00:09:36.820
just this like strict identity as if like you are gay, so therefore you have a better idea kind of
00:09:43.180
thing. But rather when you put people together of all different backgrounds, of all different
00:09:46.820
experiences and different identities, you just get higher rates of innovation. This has been
00:09:51.400
demonstrated time and time again. I can give you another study if you want. The one that I just
00:09:55.280
read you, I do understand it was a murder mystery. And the reason that that's important, as cheesy as
00:10:00.100
it sounds, is because that was able to find not a correlation, but more of a causal link between
00:10:05.700
diversity contributing to higher rates of innovation.
00:10:08.880
But what was the thing that they found that was different from race to race?
00:10:14.120
I don't, yeah, see, I don't know exactly what the difference was that they found in these things.
00:10:18.020
I can send you the whole study if you want, but I don't think that's important.
00:10:22.140
You're saying this thing, but you haven't even, it sounds like you haven't read it though.
00:10:27.660
Well, I don't have all the information stuck here, right here on my notes, but I think that
00:10:30.980
this is kind of weak if you're going to start accusing me of not reading the full entire
00:10:34.940
study. When I have, first of all, second of all, this is not what's, that's not the relevant part.
00:10:40.220
What's relevant is that when there is more diversity, they perform better. I can give
00:10:44.360
you another one too. By correlating diversity in leadership with market outcomes, as reported
00:10:49.600
by respondents, they learned that companies with more diversity out-innovate and out-perform
00:10:54.100
others. Employees at these companies are 45% likelier to report that their firm's market
00:10:59.400
share grew over the previous year and 70% likelier to report that the firm captured a
00:11:05.040
new market. So the fact that they're capturing a new market is again, evidence that they are
00:11:11.060
Well, yeah, we're talking about marketing and business. I would never say that there doesn't
00:11:16.000
need to be, you know, different viewpoints and say, we're marketing towards a different
00:11:20.540
demographic here. I think it makes perfect sense. But what we were talking about was,
00:11:24.100
stuff in the military and how just placing diversity and putting in, not necessarily
00:11:30.100
a strong, you know, focus on diversity, but in and out of itself, I don't think it matters
00:11:36.220
at all when you're, when your goal here is to fight and your goal here is to, you know,
00:11:41.600
The goal of the military is not to fight. Okay. What is it?
00:11:45.660
The goal of the military is really ultimately to keep our country safe. But again, there's only 10%
00:11:50.220
of our military that we'll ever even see fighting. This, this is oftentimes a straw man that a lot
00:11:54.920
of people build up, which is like, Oh, do you really think a weak, frail woman is going to do
00:11:59.240
good on the battlefield? No, that's not all the military is though. There's way more to the military
00:12:05.380
I'm aware I was in the military, but the, the, what I'm,
00:12:08.220
you don't sound like you're aware because you're making the argument that it's all fighting.
00:12:11.180
I mean, those people support the people that are fighting the supply chain and the, the vehicle
00:12:18.440
technicians. These are all people who are supporting the people fighting. It never ever comes up where
00:12:23.220
somebody says we need more diversity. Oh, if only we had people from this place or this place,
00:12:28.820
or who thought this way, we would have been better off. That sort of stuff never comes up. And it comes
00:12:33.120
to my broader point is when you make these videos and, and you're, you're shitting on people and you
00:12:39.000
pull up the, like you, I went through your Twitter a little bit yesterday and it's mainly reacting to
00:12:43.580
people that you don't like and saying how stupid they are. And you, and you take these broader
00:12:47.700
concepts and take them at face value. Like in one point in that video, you, you read about, um,
00:12:54.920
you read something off the American immigration council as if that they're, I, as if their goal is
00:13:00.140
not to advance the, you know, the public image of diversity in the military. Um, you talked about
00:13:05.260
martial law. Um, there's one point where you're, you're taking apart, uh, what John says about,
00:13:10.960
you know, people having mental illnesses in the military and you Google a part that says
00:13:15.700
you don't have to be like really mentally competent to apply for the military. And then it says
00:13:20.260
educational achievement, cognitive testing, and cursory psychiatric evaluation. And then you take
00:13:25.480
that and you're just like, well, that settles it. So I feel like, no, it's that if you say that
00:13:29.880
there are a bunch of mentally ill people in the military, that doesn't really add up.
00:13:34.000
If they need to pass a cognition test in order to even begin serving in the military,
00:13:38.840
that's the point I was making. You don't know what the test is. Okay. That's not true. You keep on
00:13:44.300
bringing up your own personal experience with this. I'm not saying that all the soldiers are hanging
00:13:48.880
out saying, man, where's another black person. It's that again, the military is made up of a large
00:13:54.760
group of people. It's not just fighting. It is a large group of people that contribute to different,
00:13:59.820
different facets of the military. And when you have diversity, again, you have more innovation.
00:14:05.600
And honestly, there are even studies showing that when you exclude people, when you are obsessed with
00:14:11.520
this idea of cohesion on the basis of race or sexual orientation or gender identity, you actually
00:14:18.740
weaken the military. You weaken the morale of the military. And you basically undermine the perception
00:14:25.100
that people have of the military as well, because now the military no longer resembles
00:14:29.420
the demographic of the country. This has been demonstrated. I could send you a peer-reviewed
00:14:34.040
study that studied the UK military, for example, and found just this. So again, I'm not saying you
00:14:39.560
need to have quotas to force diversity in everything. I'm saying that the argument that I was responding
00:14:45.300
to as far as John Doyle and John Miller was that they were saying diversity is not a strength of the
00:14:50.280
military. And I'm saying it is. Again, you say I'm saying from my personal experience, it's not just
00:14:57.140
my personal experience, it's how it is. Like, for example, if I was to say there was a fitness test
00:15:02.360
and obese people didn't make it, that's just not my personal experience. That's how it is. And that's
00:15:07.460
how the military operates. So it's not just me talking from my experience of what I saw, you know,
00:15:12.660
day to day between and had conversations between people. It's how it actually is. And I feel like you
00:15:18.140
take these surface level arguments and you say, oh, that's how it must be. I've googled this
00:15:23.120
definition and I've googled what mental acuity tests they do and they do this cognitive evaluation
00:15:29.060
and therefore there can be no sign of, you know, people with poor mental health in the military.
00:15:35.120
You're saying, well, I was in the military and this was my experience, so that's how it is.
00:15:38.780
No, no, I just told you that's not, no, it's not just my experience. It is how it is though.
00:15:43.900
But how do you know that? You're taking it at face value. You're gauging from your own
00:15:48.080
experience. So I never talked to anybody. I never knew anything about what was going on
00:15:52.200
while I was there. No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that you can't accuse me
00:15:56.300
of just kind of looking at things at face value when that's actually what you're doing. You're
00:16:00.940
gauging from your own experience and the fact that you talk to some people here and there and then
00:16:05.100
saying, well, that's just how it is. That's not just how it is. So from your googling, you have a
00:16:09.340
better understanding of what the military is than people who are actually... I don't have a better
00:16:13.900
understanding of what it's like to be in the military, but I absolutely have a better
00:16:17.500
understanding in regards to the fact that diversity benefits the military. Yes.
00:16:21.400
Okay. I don't know if we're going to get anywhere with that. I did want to bring in
00:16:25.140
another guest, Olivia. Do you want to go ahead and put them both on?
00:16:31.760
Well, wait, who are you ambushing me with? Because we're not even done with our discussion yet.
00:16:39.180
Andrew. Hey, John, what's up? Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are
00:16:45.280
Entertainment. Here to discuss diversity. Here to discuss the military.
00:16:52.000
Finally. I'm doing good. We took so long to get this set up. I'm actually happy to see you,
00:16:58.140
John. How are you doing, man? It is true. I'm doing pretty well. You know,
00:17:01.280
I don't want to stand on ceremony with this sort of performative fraternity, Hunter. You know,
00:17:05.400
you had some very abrasive things to say about me in your video, which admittedly I didn't watch.
00:17:11.060
Admittedly, I also didn't rewatch my video in preparation for this because, of course,
00:17:15.400
I wanted to give you the biggest advantage possible. So you're going to have to refresh
00:17:18.480
me a little bit on your critiques as we go along here. But yeah, I'm excited.
00:17:23.220
Yeah. The main critique that I had was just you seem to be very much against this idea of diversity
00:17:28.280
in the military. And that's just not true. Like, I thought that that was quite delusional,
00:17:33.980
to be honest, because virtually every single study we have, whether it's of a private business
00:17:38.460
or of the military directly, we can see that diversity contributes to a significant amount
00:17:43.840
of innovation. Right. So for those watching, people of Hunter's kin like to do this thing
00:17:50.840
with studies where they basically use them like Pokemon cards. So Hunter is going to take his
00:17:55.460
studies and he's going to say, look at this study. It says this thing, blam. And it's like his argument
00:17:59.560
is the title of the study. You know, he doesn't believe that people like, as we saw with what Andrew
00:18:03.100
was saying, can experience things, can infer data, can use their inductive reasoning, things
00:18:08.100
like that. So that's why, you know, it's always studies and data. So, you know, people like
00:18:11.880
Hunter also, it's not a coincidence that they're so obsessed with things like the Marvel Cinematic
00:18:15.860
Universe, right? Like they conceptualize diversity.
00:18:18.940
Hold on. Wait, wait, wait. No, no, no, no. Is this actually your argument right now? Is the
00:18:23.160
idea of shitting on data and factual information because you think that feelings outweigh facts?
00:18:29.180
Is that it? No. I never said it. If you would listen to my argument, I know this isn't one of
00:18:32.620
your reaction streams where you're going to pause what I'm saying and have your little
00:18:35.280
questions. Well, this isn't one of your videos where you can just make up a bunch of lies about
00:18:39.300
what I think. Let's just go one at a time. Well, let me just finish my opening monologue here.
00:18:42.980
My point was going to be that people of Hunter's coalition, maybe not him necessarily, since we
00:18:47.480
want to get specific here, they can only conceptualize diversity like a team of superheroes,
00:18:52.660
right? Or like the, what was that Pixar movie, Inside Out, where you've got like this guy with
00:18:57.220
this strength and then this guy is really good at this thing and they all come together and then
00:19:00.180
they beat the bad guy. That's not actually how it works. And, you know, what it comes down to
00:19:04.400
basically in brass text is that anything the military is doing besides focusing on destroying
00:19:08.460
enemies and their resources and securing our borders is by definition operating at a less
00:19:13.780
efficient way than it should be. And so the whole idea behind diverse identities, as Hunter
00:19:19.300
articulated, is this idea that like, oh, well, you know, if you've got the white guy, he's going to
00:19:23.460
have this way of looking at it. If you've got the black guy, he's going to have this way of looking
00:19:26.700
at it. And when they all come together, you know, they can sort of figure out the best way possible
00:19:30.860
because you have all these different perspectives. I wanted to set up a debate between you guys.
00:19:36.040
Hunter refused. And then he... I did not refuse. You did. I said that I wanted a... Hold on,
00:19:41.240
wait, wait, wait. No, you said I'll never debate him. I don't care if I've got to go get
00:19:43.640
spoke to you guys. You said I'll never... I said that I wanted a non-biased moderator.
00:19:47.320
Yeah. And have I said... No. How? Have I said anything? I haven't said anything. I haven't said
00:19:51.780
anything. No. If I could just comment on the structure of the debate, typically the way these
00:19:55.900
actual debates, as opposed to, you know, internet blood sports go is, you know, one side will speak
00:19:59.840
for five, 10 minutes. The other side will speak for five, 10 minutes. There's questions, etc. That's
00:20:04.240
kind of the impression under which I was operating. So I'd like to be able to speak for a few minutes
00:20:07.620
uninterrupted. I just wanted to interject with the fact that I haven't said anything and he's saying
00:20:12.040
there's a debate on a moderator on your side, and this is why he refused to come on. But I'm perfectly able
00:20:17.060
to sit here, as I've shown, and not say anything and let you guys talk. So let's go back to
00:20:20.620
both of them. You're not letting me talk right now. Because you just made a claim that I'm...
00:20:24.740
Can I respond to anything that John said? Or is he literally... Yeah, you will have ample
00:20:28.960
time. You just got to be patient. Delay gratification. Are we going to do a five-minute
00:20:33.140
thing? Because I'm not doing that. That'd be great. Can you speak for five minutes extemporaneously?
00:20:37.140
Are you afraid of that? No, it's not that I'm afraid of it. It's that a real debate is you say
00:20:41.800
something, then I ask a question, then we kind of build upon that and have more of a conversation.
00:20:45.100
That's not accurate. You know, I didn't even go to college, Hunter. I know the collegiate
00:20:50.000
level debate, there's the first affirmative, there's the first rebuttal. I mean, it goes
00:20:53.820
in blocks. So I'm going to continue with what I was trying to say. This is a formal debate.
00:20:57.400
Well, it is. You know, I would like to think that we can operate at that level. You know,
00:21:00.400
I have a great amount of respect for you, believe it or not. I can't believe that your version
00:21:03.420
of a debate, you're so scared to actually just talk back and forth. Are you afraid of my soy
00:21:07.580
things? People won't let me talk. My brother in Christ, you got to stop. I'm going to just
00:21:10.720
continue. My brother in Christ, you won't shut the fuck up. The idea, you're so tough,
00:21:15.940
dude. Like, I don't understand. I never agreed to this. You're literally just ambushing me and
00:21:19.540
then saying, oh, it's a formal debate now. So you have to be quiet for five minutes. It
00:21:22.440
is. Let's actually talk about it. Why do you think that diversity does not benefit the military?
00:21:26.580
What's your evidence of this? See, I was going to continue. Anyways, the idea that diversity
00:21:31.260
does inherently benefit the military, like in that video in particular, I think I was mainly
00:21:34.880
talking about diversity in terms of sex and in terms of sexuality. So like literally,
00:21:39.940
if you're going to argue that diversity in terms of sexuality benefits the military,
00:21:44.420
like they could read something written by von Clausewitz or something written by Sun Tzu,
00:21:48.500
and they could actually amend that text and have a better idea of how to conquer enemies and defend
00:21:53.460
borders than these people. And this kind of gets into the other thing. Well, even if not in terms of
00:21:57.740
strategic innovation, in terms of technological innovation, you know, they have something to offer
00:22:01.820
there because he mentioned as well, on the battlefield, only 10% of people are going to
00:22:05.720
see combat, right? Now, in my opinion, that's more of an argument against the fact that the
00:22:09.920
military has basically become a jobs program, less against the fact that, you know, it's not actually
00:22:14.280
going to have a lot of people on the battlefield. But you've got the innovation, at least, if not the
00:22:17.720
combat aspect. The thing with that, though, is if you say you're going to have a million people that
00:22:23.000
can be in the military, just to use that number, if you're going to just stock it with people,
00:22:27.320
for diversity's sake, you're going to want to stock it with the most people who are the most
00:22:31.320
likely to innovate. Because obviously, you know, I'm less innovative than the woman that he
00:22:35.240
mentioned who created that technology. But on average, I think that's what's important to look
00:22:39.360
at. And if you look at virtually 95%, which is an actual figure, 95% of the innovation,
00:22:45.600
both scientific and technological, that took place on this planet between, I think, 800 BC and 1950 AD
00:22:52.800
was done by European men. I don't know why that is, but that just happens to be the case.
00:22:57.200
The fact of the matter is that at the end. Are you serious right now? You're actually
00:23:01.200
just going to do it. I'm going to hang up and leave, okay? If you don't let me actually talk
00:23:04.560
and respond to some of this bullshit. I'm almost done. I promise. I promise.
00:23:07.040
I'm almost done. Why are you just talking? You think this is one of your videos right now?
00:23:10.500
You've made like 50 claims. I'm not going to be able to respond to all of them.
00:23:14.120
You're trying to gish gallop me, John. You're trying to gish gallop me. You're so mad right
00:23:18.920
now because you don't like the idea of having a conversation. You're used to just sitting down and
00:23:22.700
saying, heck off, commie, LOLOL. You're breaking from your script. I know. You're really scared
00:23:27.460
right now. You're the one who needs to talk for five minutes. You can't do it without
00:23:31.000
your little reaction. I'm not afraid to talk for five minutes. I'm actually interested in talking
00:23:33.760
to you, not just talking to you. Then let me just get a couple more little bullet points out here.
00:23:38.380
How many bullet points are you going to get out to? I get to actually respond to.
00:23:41.700
This is how debates work, dude. This is not how a debate works.
00:23:46.220
Anyways. This is not how a debate works, my dude.
00:23:48.360
So the idea that we have this one anecdote, we have this one anecdote of this woman who invented
00:23:54.440
this particular piece of technology, this minority who invented this particular piece of technology
00:23:58.640
in a vacuum. If you were to keep pumping the military with, say, European men, which is the
00:24:03.860
traditionally the founding stock of our military, eventually they would have come up with that
00:24:08.240
technology. That's just a fact. Eventually they would have, because we can infer that from the
00:24:13.060
fact that they've invented like virtually everything else. So I guess then-
00:24:17.000
It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that oftentimes like white people were dominating
00:24:20.420
the country. So like, for example, you could say like-
00:24:23.080
Why was that? Because we're good at innovating stuff.
00:24:25.400
Well, no, no. You could say like, hey, how come black people didn't really present any good
00:24:28.700
inventions during the time that they were enslaved or during the time that Jim Crow was in place?
00:24:33.480
Like, I don't think it's fair for you to just say, well, look, Europeans did this and that's
00:24:37.440
just because they're European, LOL. That's not how this works. What it is, is that oftentimes
00:24:41.920
Europeans held more power and they were in a privileged position where they were able to
00:24:46.800
innovate at faster rates. But it doesn't mean that that is intrinsic to the fact that they are in
00:24:51.240
fact European. And again, I have a question there about that. You keep trying to call what I'm saying
00:24:56.380
like an anecdote. That's an example of some things that, that's some of the things that women have
00:25:01.160
contributed or gay people have contributed. Sure. But it's not just that. Again, it's that by having
00:25:05.560
diversity, you avoid this idea of groupthink. You break away from groupthink and you are able to innovate
00:25:11.080
faster. Why is it? Okay. So we're going to go point by point. Let's go point by point. No,
00:25:17.100
it doesn't. Let's go point by point then. I want to talk about the Europe versus Africa thing.
00:25:21.360
Colonization, right? No, we're not going to talk. This has nothing to do with the actual military
00:25:24.460
thing. I know that you've got to get back to your script. I understand that you have to get back
00:25:28.620
to your script. Okay. But hold on. We're actually talking now. Nobody watching this actually thinks
00:25:32.200
that your brain's operating at a higher level. I mean, I'm thinking fast. I haven't been able to say a word,
00:25:36.320
my dude. You've literally been just talking nonstop. And the non-biased mod isn't even
00:25:40.780
helping at all. Oh, I'm sorry, Hunter. I thought when I spoke earlier, I was being too biased. Okay,
00:25:45.740
John, let's give Hunter a few minutes to say what he wants to say. I didn't want to appear too biased
00:25:50.500
because, you know. So let it be known that I said that I was more than happy to debate John Doyle.
00:25:55.660
You did not. No. You said I will never. You shut up. This is my show. I'm going to go ahead and mute.
00:26:02.100
So I said that I was more than happy to debate John Doyle, for example, on modern day debate.
00:26:07.240
Okay, on that one. I thought you were muting me. On modern day debate, they reached out multiple
00:26:11.840
times. John Doyle never responded. And I directly said, I'm not so sure I want to debate on your
00:26:17.100
platform, Andrew. He said, I'll never debate John on my show. And I haven't said anything.
00:26:20.860
And I said, because you were going to be biased. How am I biased?
00:26:23.700
Because you let John ramble on for last 10 minutes.
00:26:25.640
And as soon as you complained, I said, you can have the floor now. And John just agreed. So
00:26:31.800
instead of complaining further, just say what you want to say.
00:26:34.840
Okay. So again, my claim is not that we need to impose diversity on the military. My claim is that
00:26:41.160
by letting more people into the military of all different diverse backgrounds, you are benefiting
00:26:46.740
innovation. And John, I know that you say like, that's not true. That's not true. Blah, blah, blah,
00:26:51.120
blah, blah. But you need to tell me then, how come we have found not one, not two, but multiple
00:26:56.140
different studies that have all shown that when there is more diversity, the companies innovate
00:27:01.600
at faster rates. Can you please answer why that is the case?
00:27:05.580
Yeah, I actually, I do want to address the one study that you cited in particular,
00:27:09.240
the murder mystery study, which you said was proof that diversity is good.
00:27:13.540
On the surface, it's like murder mystery being equivalent to warfare. Okay. But you have to look at
00:27:18.580
the difference between the two. I mean, you have something like a murder mystery, right? That's
00:27:21.640
like a social deduction scenario. You have a finite pool from which to draw. And then maybe you can
00:27:27.180
find who did it, so to speak, versus like literal open modern warfare. Right. So what I'm familiar
00:27:33.680
with in terms of the literature, I know you have low impulse control, but you just have to stop.
00:27:39.880
Okay. We, you want to go back and forth and we have to go back and forth. So in terms of the
00:27:44.100
literature that I think alludes to some of this, like corporate diversity being good,
00:27:47.700
military diversity being good, oftentimes what they find is exactly that perspective thing that
00:27:51.980
you're talking about, where if you have a more diverse group of people, then they're better able
00:27:56.540
to assess situations critically. That's the problem because all of the literature that's supporting
00:28:01.800
that claim, you have to be careful with what that, what that is implicated because they're not
00:28:05.340
saying that they're actually better at producing the correct outcomes for situations. Literally what
00:28:10.600
they are saying is they are better at critical thinking. Why is that? That is because when you have
00:28:14.920
more people from different backgrounds, they are more likely to disagree on things,
00:28:19.560
which they define positively as critical thinking. I would disagree with that because again,
00:28:24.120
I want to get back to the Europe versus Africa thing, because you said that the reason Africa
00:28:27.560
didn't have a competent military or innovation, so to speak, was because of European oppression.
00:28:31.840
I didn't say Africa. No, no, that's not what I said. I was just making a lot of point about the
00:28:35.600
European. Okay. But hold on, what you just said as far as... Really, I just have one question and
00:28:39.240
then I'll shut up. I promise. I just want to respond to what you said really quickly because you didn't
00:28:41.440
answer my question either. But first of all, when you have people, you just admitted it, that when
00:28:46.520
you have people, you have a lot of different ideas, you have a finite pool of information to pull
00:28:51.680
from, and that is a benefit of diversity. Second of all, the study that I just referenced to you was not
00:28:57.300
actually the murder mystery one. I was bringing up a study which looked at different banks and they
00:29:02.760
found that innovation-focused banks increased or innovation increased in racial diversity,
00:29:09.180
that that was clearly related to an enhanced financial performance. So when you say they're
00:29:14.060
not looking at the outcome, they are looking at the outcomes. The outcomes are specifically
00:29:18.360
benefiting by having more diversity. And this isn't just in private firms where this has been
00:29:23.580
discovered. Even the military itself has found that when women are involved in complex problem
00:29:28.580
solving, they solve problems at faster rates than groups that are just made up of men, for example.
00:29:34.320
So what's wrong with this? Why don't we want our military to be strong and efficient?
00:29:39.280
I would be curious to see the sample size from that one pertaining to women because men are more
00:29:44.620
rational than women. And so I would imagine that's... No, it's not a lie.
00:29:48.820
That's a lie. It's absolutely not a lie. And there's even studies supporting that too.
00:29:54.640
No, there isn't. There's studies reporting the complete opposite. But I know that you kind of
00:29:58.240
have to just make up stuff. But okay, go ahead. What were you saying?
00:30:01.940
Well, anyways. So it's like if you take a sample size of high IQ women and compare them to average
00:30:06.660
IQ men, they're going to be better at solving those problems. But if I took 100 women off the street and
00:30:10.600
100 men off the street, I mean, you would be delusional to suggest that the women would be better at
00:30:14.680
solving the problems than the men would. I mean, this is just a fact.
00:30:18.860
In terms of the social deduction, it is true. Dude, I don't know if you're lying. I don't know
00:30:24.240
what kind of bubble you live in to actually believe this. It reminds me of the Trump tweet.
00:30:28.040
Is this even possible to believe? You haven't provided any evidence. You're just saying,
00:30:32.120
obviously, this is the case. I have evidence after evidence after evidence that shows that
00:30:36.600
the Marine Corps, for example, found that including women resulted in just as good, if not better,
00:30:41.920
cognitive performance with these challenging problems. I have information showing that when women are
00:30:46.300
involved in high firm companies, they perform better, the more diversity is implemented in
00:30:51.380
those companies. This is a clear evidence that women are not less rational than men. You're going
00:30:56.820
to have some women that are less rational than men. You're also going to have some men that are
00:30:59.960
less rational than women. They have done studies where they presented men and women with complex
00:31:04.640
moral problems. And at the end of the day, men and women were just as rational. This is just a lie that
00:31:11.220
you're saying right now. No, no, it's not. There's a really good book that I don't think
00:31:15.880
you'll read, but if anyone's interested, it's called The Rationality Quotant. It's how to quantify
00:31:20.380
actually thinking rationally. And they found, I think, a 0.67 or 0.68 advantage in terms of rational
00:31:27.020
thinking for men. So again, I don't even think this is worth addressing. But again, what you're
00:31:31.480
arguing, I'm frankly much less concerned about all of the studies and things like that. I'm talking about
00:31:36.900
like what we know about world history. What you are arguing is that all of the conquests of, for
00:31:41.280
example, the Roman Empire would have been better if you would have had more women involved or more
00:31:46.540
gay people involved or things like that. And this is why I know, I don't know why you are so like,
00:31:50.240
like afraid of this comparison. But when you're talking about like, you know, Africa was at a
00:31:54.280
disadvantage versus Europe. Well, why then was Europe able to come in and colonize Africa? If we were
00:32:00.160
really at a level playing field, they have more natural resources than Europe. Why didn't, why weren't they
00:32:04.560
able to man the defenses? I understand that. But listen to what I'm saying. I'm saying that
00:32:08.580
innovation is more likely to come from European men as evidenced by literally 95% of all of it.
00:32:13.460
You're saying no. I'm saying, okay, well, if that's not the case, why was Africa not able to defend
00:32:19.100
itself from European colonization? These are all, these are completely unrelated. The European
00:32:25.480
humanization had everything to do with advanced levels of technology, even where did that come from?
00:32:30.240
Hold on. Even different climates had an effect there. This idea of, well, Africa couldn't defend
00:32:35.640
itself. Therefore, minorities are not good for innovation is, is irrelevant. This is one of the
00:32:39.880
weakest arguments I've ever heard. We need to combine and look at how diversity interacts
00:32:44.600
with the military and in actual companies, because that's how the military is. You keep saying, well,
00:32:51.020
what about the military is a company at that? Well, no, no, no. It's not just the company,
00:32:56.360
but it's, it's a group where there is a large amount of people that are all working towards
00:33:01.020
a common goal. And if you want to talk about, if you actually want to talk about world history,
00:33:05.400
I mean, you can look at historical examples. Since the 1800s, for example, armies with high
00:33:09.880
rates of inequality have done poorly, according to all kinds of measures. One statistical analysis
00:33:15.100
focused on armies with high rates of inequality, and that they found that that increased the odds by
00:33:19.980
50% that an army will suffer more casualties than it inflicts on the other side. So that's some
00:33:26.180
world history for you right there. When you are discriminatory, or when you don't properly
00:33:31.600
include minorities into your group, you lack positive outcomes. You weaken the military,
00:33:39.100
you weaken the morale. And again, I don't know why you keep going back to this Africa thing.
00:33:43.700
At the end of the day, we have multiple different studies that have shown that when women and black
00:33:49.980
people and minorities are included in these firms, they do better. You're just denying this. You're
00:33:56.720
just denying it right now. Okay, I have another question. Help me understand. If we know that if
00:34:01.380
you have a group of like, say, 50 bland vanilla white men, and you throw in the black people and
00:34:06.940
women, you're saying that that'll help that company do better, that military operation do better,
00:34:11.960
then why then in the places in the world where we see the most black people or the most,
00:34:16.540
any sort of minority group, why then are they not doing as well as where we see the most groups of
00:34:21.080
like white male dominated spheres? If that's the case. Sure, I can answer that. Yeah, the answer to
00:34:26.420
that is not that, oh, just because they're black, they somehow have a better idea, lol. What you're
00:34:31.840
doing is stripping this of all nuance. And you're looking at this in one of the most delusionally
00:34:36.380
reductionist ways imaginable. What it is, is not only diversity, it's how you properly implement that
00:34:41.980
diversity. Obviously, just having a large group of black people is not going to necessarily lead
00:34:47.560
to any better or worse outcome than having a large group of uneducated white people or something.
00:34:53.060
That's not the key here. The key is that when you have a business or a company or something like the
00:35:00.060
military, and they all have a common goal, implementing diversity in the proper way, mind you,
00:35:05.860
leads to more innovation because you're pulling from a larger pool of information. There is more
00:35:12.080
experience behind that. And then, like I've already demonstrated, that leads to higher rates of
00:35:17.240
innovation. This benefits the military immensely. Like, I want to see the military get stronger.
00:35:22.200
I want our country to be kept safe. And that's what the military does. And so it only makes sense to
00:35:26.520
have a larger pool to gauge information from. That was your argument at the beginning of this.
00:35:31.080
Right. So, again, it's like, even in recent history, our military hasn't been able to do
00:35:37.160
really anything quite effectively. I mean, we got embarrassed in Afghanistan. We were embarrassed
00:35:41.560
in all of our campaigns in the Middle East. And now it's like, like, I'm really, I really kind of
00:35:47.340
want you to just think about, like, what you're saying to me, which is that, you know, if we are
00:35:52.460
to increase, like, what experience do you think, if you just had to guess, maybe there's not a study,
00:35:56.460
if you just had to guess, what experience do you think the average black guy has,
00:36:00.160
in terms of dealing with high level military operations, small unit tactics that the average
00:36:05.160
white guy just, like, doesn't have? Like, what is that experience that you think he could really
00:36:09.120
bring to the table there? I don't think that anybody, white, black, gay, straight, women,
00:36:14.280
whatever, have, like, some intrinsic understanding of the military. They would be trained to have-
00:36:18.960
Well, then why would you need them for military diversity to make it better? That's the essence of
00:36:22.820
your argument. No. I think that you're literally thinking that my argument is, like,
00:36:26.660
just take a random woman off the street and plop her in the military, therefore military gets
00:36:32.220
Your argument, that would increase innovation. No. Even if only slightly, yes.
00:36:37.660
My argument is that when you train, obviously, to get somebody in the military, they're going to
00:36:41.800
have to train to be in the military. Obviously. I'm not talking about just-
00:36:47.160
I'm not talking about just grabbing random people and then saying, oh, look, they're black,
00:36:51.520
they must have better ideas. It's that, again, I've said this now five times,
00:36:54.780
when you take a large group of people of different identities and they're all focused on a common
00:37:00.660
goal, after all going through the same training, mind you, to get to where they are in the military
00:37:05.780
or going through the same process to be hired in a hypothetical firm, then you will see higher
00:37:11.800
rates of innovation. I'm not saying that some black person just has an intrinsic understanding of
00:37:17.160
the military, but guess what? Neither do any white guys, okay? They all go through a proper training,
00:37:22.840
and then once they do, when they're all put in a group where they have to have a common outcome
00:37:27.320
or a common goal, we see the diversity and the different experiences and different backgrounds
00:37:32.120
lead to less groupthink and more innovation. And also, one more thing I really want to quickly
00:37:36.740
address. You said like, oh, we haven't really seen our military do anything recently, yada, yada,
00:37:41.160
yada. I mean, you might be right. I don't know. You might be wrong. But at the end of the day,
00:37:45.200
if you want to look at all of the different innovation that was contributed to our military during,
00:37:49.220
say, World War II, for example, there was a multitude of benefits that were brought to
00:37:55.140
our military from minority groups, whether they were black, women, or gay. So I don't think that
00:38:00.900
you can necessarily just say that they must not have an understanding or they must have the
00:38:04.260
understanding. What were some of those? I mean, you say multitudes. There's so many examples. Give
00:38:08.460
me one from World War II. Sure. So Alan Turning, he was a crypto analysis for the British government
00:38:14.400
during World War II. He was also a gay man. His code-breaking skills played a pivotal role in
00:38:20.020
intercepting coded German messages. I can give you another one. The multiplex telegram was used in
00:38:25.500
World War II, was invented by a black man named Granville T. Woods. He also invented the first
00:38:30.960
prototype of the gas mask. If you want another one, Heidi Lamar, she's a woman. She invented the
00:38:36.540
frequency hopping communication system, which now gives us Wi-Fi, GPS, and Bluetooth. These are all
00:38:42.620
things that have benefited the military that were brought to the military from diversity. So you
00:38:49.100
need to tell me, why are you in favor of weakening the military just because you don't want there to
00:38:55.240
be diversity? Can you explain that one? I'm not even anti-diversity. I just fail to see the logic
00:39:02.280
behind thinking that the less cohesive you make a group, the more likely it is to be able to
00:39:07.900
successfully fulfill a task, which would require it to be cohesive. You know, there's a reason when
00:39:12.380
you're, as you would know, Andrew, there's a reason that when you get into the military,
00:39:15.260
they haze you and they shave your head and they basically tell you that you're disposable. I mean,
00:39:20.320
the whole idea psychologically, and again, only 10% are in combat. The whole idea psychologically is
00:39:25.060
to remove any sort of identity you have and tell you that like, you are a unit and you're going to
00:39:30.380
maybe die and like, that's fine. And so this idea that like, oh, well, this guy happened to like
00:39:34.780
anal sex. And that's why he was able to create this piece of technology. And that made it better.
00:39:38.780
It's like, you know, don't ask, don't tell. I'm not saying you need to kick people out of the
00:39:43.160
military. I'm just saying that this efforts to purposefully have diversity, which is what we
00:39:47.520
have is a waste of military resources and diversity in general. I mean, I have yet to see any real
00:39:52.500
evidence. I mean, I haven't, I'm not familiar with the evidence that Hunter's presented. I'd like
00:39:55.760
him to email it to me, but you know, the most comprehensive, yeah, the most comprehensive study I think
00:40:00.880
we have on diversity in terms of like ethnicity is of course the Putnam study from 2011. Famous
00:40:05.800
social scientist from Harvard. And he found that as you increase ethnic diversity in a community,
00:40:10.460
everything goes down, political involvement, trust, everything goes down. The only thing that goes up
00:40:15.460
when you increase diversity is the amount of people protesting and the amount of people watching TV.
00:40:20.220
That's it. So I fail to see, and I fail to conceptualize how, you know, the great militaries
00:40:26.480
throughout the world would have been better if they simply had more people from different groups
00:40:30.900
or more women or more gay people. I just, I don't, that doesn't compute. And you know, on paper,
00:40:36.040
it sounds like it makes a lot of sense, but when we square that with what we know about how humans
00:40:40.220
behave and interact with each other, I think it really doesn't make sense. And I think that's
00:40:44.000
actually why he relies so heavily on papers and studies and things like that, because he doesn't
00:40:48.660
seem to want to argue just from like his own logic. He wants to, again, play the Pokemon card.
00:40:53.220
I've got my EX card. It's peer reviewed. And it's like my brother in Christ. You just,
00:40:57.840
you just can't really argue from, from within, from what you know. So.
00:41:02.400
Charizard cards going for hundreds of thousands of dollars these days. I'd like to empower you guys
00:41:07.480
to watch some Pawn Stars maybe. Hunter, you got the floor for up to five minutes. Say whatever you
00:41:11.940
want. Go right ahead. Yeah, I'll go ahead and just respond to all the really retarded things that
00:41:16.840
John Doyle just said. So first and foremost, he complained last time in his video about a bunch of
00:41:21.980
sexual assaults happening in the military. And he attributed that to gay people when in fact the
00:41:26.860
sexual assault rise in the military is actually a result of hazing. So oftentimes we see sexual
00:41:32.160
assaults at skyrocketing rates because straight men will literally go and sexually abuse other men
00:41:38.620
simply for the sake of hazing. This is a huge problem. You can read about it on army.com if you
00:41:43.740
don't believe it. So very good argument, John. Not sure why you're in favor of more sexual assault.
00:41:47.740
Second of all, Putman study. Very funny that you referenced that one. The Putman study was
00:41:52.760
actually the reason that they found that result was not because of diversity. It was rather because
00:41:57.560
there were racist dipshits like you, John, who were angry that black people were there. So because
00:42:03.480
there were racists, that negatively affected the cohesion, not having black people. In fact,
00:42:09.060
there are way better studies which have shown that when you put white and black people together in
00:42:13.300
the same community, excuse me, white people tend to become less racist because they no longer
00:42:19.380
perceive a threat by people that look different from them. Okay? Second of all, when it comes to
00:42:25.360
the military, minorities fare just as well in the military when the military emphasizes the end goal
00:42:30.580
of the mission rather than getting hung up on unique individual traits. You talk about cohesion,
00:42:36.800
I agree with you. A unit that is not cohesive will not function properly. But you are wrongly
00:42:42.240
attributing this idea that having diversity is somehow going to harm cohesion. That's not true.
00:42:48.500
Cohesion actually benefits when you accept more people because, again, you lower the perceived threat
00:42:55.800
and, in turn, you then get a benefit which is more innovation. So there have already been studies,
00:43:01.480
for example, that have shown that when people are hung up on gender identity or sexual orientation,
00:43:07.280
they actually destabilize their military rather than protecting their own capabilities. That harms
00:43:14.060
the military at the end of the day. So again, not sure, John, why you're in favor of a weaker
00:43:17.460
military. And lastly, you say, I'm just relying on studies, using them as Pokemon cards, yada, yada,
00:43:22.840
yada, this thing and the other thing, instead of feeling what's within. I'm sorry. I don't know why
00:43:27.540
you seem to be operating on a very womanly kind of basis here. But in my mind, I like to put facts
00:43:32.420
over feelings, okay? And right now, for someone like you, who unironically said that women are
00:43:38.600
less rational, I'm not sure why you are now relying on your own fifis to come to a conclusion when
00:43:43.600
that's not how the world works. If we went ahead and went by your logic, we would all be here
00:43:47.520
believing the world is flat. Now, I don't know what you believe. Maybe you do believe that. But
00:43:51.040
for most rational people, we recognize that the world is actually round, even though we've never seen
00:43:56.520
the round earth. We don't gauge within our own logic and our own little feelings. We look at studies
00:44:01.500
and data. And when you look at a multitude of studies, I'm not just pulling one fucking study
00:44:06.680
out of my ass here. We have a plethora of different data points, all showing that diversity integrated
00:44:13.140
into companies, betters the company, diversity integrated in the military, betters the military.
00:44:18.180
The reason our military is the strongest and most successful military in the entire world
00:44:22.980
is largely attributable to diversity. All right. Thank you, voice. Thank you, both boys for coming on.
00:44:30.620
Andrew, hold on. Yes, I will give you that 30 seconds in a moment. Thank you guys for coming
00:44:36.580
on. If you guys want to come back on in June, we can get you back on for a more structured debate
00:44:41.500
with more particular questions for you both to respond to. Hunter Avalon's YouTube channel
00:44:47.740
and Instagram and Twitter. You can find him on his own name, I believe, A-V-A-L-L-O-N-E,
00:44:53.400
and on his Discord, John Doyle, of course, Hack Off Comedy on YouTube. He's also often on Blaze TV,
00:44:58.840
Slightly Offensive, and all those wonderful shows. John Doyle, you were called a racist,
00:45:03.240
so you want to get 30 seconds for that? Yeah, I'm actually the least... Do I get 30 seconds to respond
00:45:07.080
from there? Sure. I'm actually the least racist person, but in our follow-up debate, in the meantime,
00:45:13.260
I would be curious, and I'm sure he'd be more than happy to send me all the information which
00:45:16.800
he was citing, and I can assure you that in the first part of our debate, if I'm allowed to speak
00:45:20.640
uninterrupted, I will refute one by one every single study he cites because it's wrong, and I don't know
00:45:25.280
the studies because I don't really keep up with that kind of stuff, but I know they're wrong.
00:45:28.760
And you can laugh, don't believe me, but just at least remember that I said it, because that's
00:45:31.760
what will happen. I'll prove to you that they're all incorrect. In terms of the Putnam study rebuttal,
00:45:35.440
he pronounced the name wrong of the author, but claims to know, like, the ins and outs of it.
00:45:39.080
It wasn't actually racist white people, because they didn't trust each other either. If you read
00:45:42.880
the study, you would know that trust as a general, as an aggregate, went down. So if that, what you're
00:45:47.340
saying was the case, measuring trust is just like that, it'd be like, oh, white people mad at black
00:45:51.520
people, but white people didn't trust each other anyways. Also, in terms of diversity,
00:45:55.740
I don't want to kick anybody out. They're lowering the bar to allow these people into the military.
00:45:59.680
That's my problem. Hunter, 30 seconds, really tight. Tighten it up.
00:46:03.080
So first and foremost, again, we're seeing John relying heavily on his fee fees. I don't know if
00:46:07.540
maybe he's still a snowflake in need of a safe space here, but again, I don't know. I'm staying
00:46:12.660
in 2016 because they still have to bother you, and I think that's very funny. So again, I rely on the data.
00:46:17.660
John relies on his feelings, as demonstrated by him saying, he's never read the studies,
00:46:22.260
but I'm sure they're all just wrong, LOL. Second of all, I don't care if I pronounced the author's
00:46:27.700
name incorrectly. The reason the trust was lower was because there was a higher rate of racism.
00:46:33.800
Racists are scared of black people, and if they act racist, that lowers the trust that black people
00:46:40.200
have in the general community as well. This is why we have seen that accepting all identities
00:46:44.760
benefits cohesion when it's implemented properly.
00:46:48.040
Okay, back to me. Thank you both. Hunter, you're going to come back for a debate with John Doyle?
00:46:55.260
I never got an opening statement either, so it's a little sad.
00:46:57.920
You'll get a big opening statement next time. Thank you, everybody, for watching.
00:47:01.500
Thank you both for coming on. I appreciate you both. It's hard to get people to come together
00:47:06.420
I lie awake through the night, wonder how you are
00:47:11.060
Hitting my dreams, break the seams, tearing us apart
00:47:18.880
I'm holding on way too long and I don't know why
00:47:26.940
But you know me, I go quiet, I don't like to lie