Naima vs Charlie Kirk, 1 Year Later | Surrounded Follow-Up

Summary

Surrounded: Naima vs Charlie Kirk, 1 Year Later | Follow-Up
Podcast: Surrounded (Jubilee Media)
Date: May 17, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This Surrounded follow-up episode reunites Naima—a standout figure from previous Surrounded viral debates—with John, a producer and frequent host. The discussion covers Naima’s Internet journey, her viral debates with high-profile conservative speakers (including Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, and Candace Owens), and deeper explorations of issues like abortion, race, affirmative action, and the role of identity vs. class in American politics. The tone is candid, raw, and at times humorous, yet consistently focused on the complexities and stakes of public debate.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Naima’s Unexpected Internet Influence

• Naima’s background: A film student at USC, not initially seeking public influence. Both parents are lawyers, giving her a strong foundation in debate and social justice.
  • "Both of my parents are lawyers. My dad is actually a civil rights lawyer...I like to joke that I've been in law school for 23 years." (02:38)
• Going viral: The Surrounded format propelled her unexpectedly into public prominence, especially after debating Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro.
  • "I didn’t use TikTok and then I woke up one day with like 200,000 followers and I was like, oh my God, what do I do with all these people?" (05:00)
• Feelings about her role: Part surprise, part excitement—Naima reflects on the responsibility and “joy” of representing more thoughtful, nuanced debate in viral spaces.
  • "It's just sick as fuck, to be quite honest." (05:22)

---

2. Revisiting the Viral Charlie Kirk Exchange

Abortion Debate – Timestamps: [07:58–14:15]

• Argument Recap: Charlie Kirk tries to draw moral equivalency between a fetus and vulnerable adults, pushing viability and definitions. Naima counters with facts on abortion timing and scientific uncertainty.
  • Charlie: "So let's go into viability...Why is it that the six week baby is of less moral worth?" (08:31)
  • Naima: "It's not a baby, it's a fetus...A parasite is defined as something that cannot survive outside of its host." (08:51, 09:25)
• Naima’s reflection: Finds humor in Kirk’s reasoning—“Can it hunt? Can it gather?”—and emphasizes how debate experience has evolved her arguments.
  • "That sends me every time. Because Charlie Kirk, you know, your ass can't hunt or gather." (10:19)
• Impact of Kirk’s Death: Acknowledges complexity and public reaction, but ultimately rejects the idea that debate platforms like Jubilee contributed to his assassination.
  • "I don't feel bad about it...what happened to him was a direct result of the kind of platform that he created." (13:56)

---

Abortion: Strategic Shifts & Policy (Timestamps: [15:19–28:22])

• From Viability to Impact: Naima explains how, since the debate, she's moved away from focusing solely on viability—due to the lack of consensus in science and shifting conservative arguments—toward real-world effects of restricting abortion.
  • "[I've] pivoted my strategy to focus more on what happens when women are not given access to abortions, how this is affecting those children." (15:19)
• Policy Impacts Post-Roe: Cites increase in illegal abortions, maternal risk, and abandoned infants, stressing policy must prioritize women’s health and autonomy.
  • "We've seen the number of babies, newborns that have been abandoned...increase." (17:39)
• Disappointment in Political Leadership: Naima feels abortion rights have been “lost in the shuffle” due to the firehose of other controversies during Trump’s presidency.
  • "Trump's presidency has thrown so much, so many humanitarian crises...at the left...I feel like the abortion debate has kind of gotten lost." (24:44)
• Historical fatigue: Personal frustration with cyclical loss and regaining of women’s rights.
  • "It's exhausting to have to keep going. Two steps forward, four steps back." (27:03)

---

3. Race, Crime, and Systemic Disparities

Recap of Charlie Kirk Race Exchange (Timestamps: [32:51–47:07])

• Kirk’s framing: Kirk leans into statistics about Black crime rates to shift blame onto “culture.”
  • "Blacks are 13% of the population and they commit 58% of all the murders. That's not a war on drugs. That's a culture problem." (32:51)
• Naima’s rebuttal: Focuses on historic exclusion, redlining, inequity in housing, education, and opportunity, directly linking poverty to crime rates—and emphasizing that crime per poverty is similar regardless of race.
  • "Where you have poverty, you have more crime. That is a fact regardless of race." (37:44)
• Systemic loops: Housing, education, jobs—each reinforcing the next. Breaking this cycle requires policy intervention, not blame.
  • "Once you now are in a bad job, you can't afford to live anywhere but the shitty housing you grew up in...now here are your kids going to those shitty schools." (45:42)
• Affirmative action: Sees it as a remedy, but with limitations.
  • "I mean, I have issues with affirmative action because I don't think it does enough...Early childhood education is one of the best places to kind of break that loop." (46:08)

---

4. Identity Politics vs. Class: The Ben Shapiro Exchange

Individualism, Representation, and Intersectionality (Timestamps: [51:03–65:16])

• Shapiro’s stance: Urges for pure individualistic representation and skepticism about DEI and identity as a basis for policy.
  • "I don't think there ought to be a conversation about why we ought to be represented by race or by sex. I think that we are each individual people with individual ideas." (52:39)
• Naima’s response: Argues that lived experience and empathy rooted in identity are essential for just policy, especially given tribalism and bias in human behavior.
  • "It's easier to be empathetic towards people whose experiences you can fundamentally understand based on your identity." (53:06)
• Complications of Identity: The blurry borders of Jewish identity (as ethnicity, religion, race) and white supremacy—referenced with Nick Fuentes as a white supremacist antagonist to both.
  • Naima: "There's this issue of being a Nazi and a white supremacist at the same time, because there are white Jews. So if you believe you are a white supremacist and a Jewish person is white, but you also hate them, it kind of creates this weird...where do they fit..." (55:46)
• Legislative challenges: Acknowledges difficulty in drafting policies based on identity, but underscores necessity for diverse representation and shifting social values.
  • "It's about internalizing the belief that people need to be represented in government by those who share their identity. Maybe...I'm not entirely sure on what policy would create that, but it's more so about accepting the ideology and the necessity of that." (61:39–64:00)
• Core take: Representation matters deeply—not a quota system, but real, lived perspectives at the table.

---

5. Class vs. Race—Where Should Policy Focus? (Timestamps: [65:16–76:57])

• Class as an alternative: John wonders if focusing on class—instead of race—would both address inequities and reduce backlash (i.e., Nick Fuentes’s white resentment).
• Naima’s stance: Both are essential but not interchangeable—America’s unique racism cannot be ignored. For her, race is urgent and life-or-death.
  • "So long as we have all these tangible negative impacts on my community, I cannot not try. It's not really a choice for me to just focus on class because I'm watching my community suffer and I'm watching the people I love die. Literally." (70:29)
• Distrust of cringy allyship vs. real representation: White people acting as “allies” can sometimes be counterproductive—emphasizes the need for authentic voices from within affected communities.
  • "It's not cringy when you're sharing your lived experience. So...when we're creating legislation that...is going to impact certain communities...it's important to center those voices who are speaking from personal experience..." (76:01)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Naima’s critique of Kirk’s language:
  "I don't really think Charlie Kirk is interested in achieving equity for the black community. If he was, he wouldn't continue to call us 'the blacks.' He said it...six times in that video, which to me is very dehumanizing. Like, I'm not a crayon, you know, We're a group of people. We are black people. We are not 'the blacks.' Right. I'm not a lump of coal. We are people." (43:14)
• On echo chambers and online culture:
  "It's just sick as fuck, to be quite honest." (05:22)
• Naima reflecting on the fatigue of repeating old battles:
  "I think there is kind of a fatigue in having to re-win rights that you already had...it's exhausting to have to keep going. Two steps forward, four steps back." (27:03)
• Humor in debate:
  "That sends me every time. Because Charlie Kirk, you know, your ass can't hunt or gather." (10:19)
• Lived experience as non-negotiable:
  "It's not an option for me...I'm fighting for the rights of my family who need these rights now, who needed these rights yesterday." (70:29)
• Summary of the DEI/representation rationale:
  "We should all value seeing ourselves represented in government, seeing our identities represented in media, because there is power." (64:00)
• John acknowledging the innovation and importance of new voices:
  "You've been a really dynamic and impactful one...that's sort of the goal of the channel is to...be a platform for new voices." (80:17)

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• Naima’s personal background and viral journey: 02:38–06:04
• Recap and reflection on Charlie Kirk abortion debate: 07:58–14:15
• Evolution in abortion rights arguments and political disappointment: 15:19–28:22
• Race/crime stats, systemic causes, poverty’s link to crime: 32:51–47:07
• Affirmative action, structural solutions, and limitations: 45:42–48:38
• Ben Shapiro debate: identity, empathy, and representation: 51:03–65:16
• Class vs. race policy focus, urgency of race-based action: 65:16–76:57

---

Tone & Final Thoughts

The conversation is insightful, passionate, and unfiltered—balancing Naima’s energetic advocacy and John’s reflective, policy-minded probing. It makes space for humor and even Internet weirdness without losing sight of the core social issues: representation, equity, and the human stories beneath statistics and policy. Both voices repeatedly stress that solutions to deep inequalities require a willingness to see the complexity of American identity, history, and the lived realities that often go unheard.

---

This summary provides a structured, content-rich map of the full debate and follow-up, highlighting the logic, evolution, and lived experience that make Surrounded’s conversations both challenging and invaluable for listeners.

Transcript

[Charlie Kirk]

Blacks commit more crimes than whites do. They commit more murders. They commit more arsons. They commit more kidnappings. For example, blacks are 13% of the population, and they commit 58% of all the murders.

[Naima]

I don't really think Charlie Kirk is interested in achieving equity for the black community. I mean, I. If he was, he wouldn't continue to call us the blacks. He said it maybe like six times in that video, which to me is very dehumanizing. Like, I'm not a crayon, you know, We're a group of people. We are black people. We are not the blacks. Right. I'm not a lump of coal. We are people. This episode is brought to you by Redfin. You're listening to a podcast, which means you're probably multitasking, maybe even scrolling home listings on Redfin, saving homes without expecting to get them. But Redfin isn't just built for endless browsing.

[Ad Read Voice]

It's built to help you find and

[Naima]

own a home with agents who close twice as many deals. When you find the one, you've got a real shot at getting it. Get [e-mail], own the dream.

[Ad Read Voice]

You survived the Miami weekend, nailed the speech, and maxed out your credit card in the name of friendship. Now you've got one hangover, four pastel dresses, and zero reasons to wear them again. Sell them on Depop. Just snap a few photos and we'll take care of the rest. And you at least get some of your dignity money back.

[Naima]

Some.

[Ad Read Voice]

Someone on Depop wants what you've got. Start selling now, Depop. Where taste recognizes taste.

[John]

Naima, welcome to the Surrounded follow up.

[Naima]

Hello. This is so exciting.

[John]

Yeah. When I see you appear in the Internet, they refer to you often as, like, Naima from Jubilee. So you're kind of like a Jubilee ambassador in your own way.

[Naima]

I get Jubilee Girl a lot. I get called Jubilee Girl.

[John]

Yes. I was trying not to make it so.

[Naima]

Yes.

[John]

Blunt.

[Naima]

I prefer it over the girl who talks to Charlie Kirk.

[John]

I like.

[Naima]

I like Jubilee Girl a little more. So, you know, I'll take it.

[John]

Yeah. Well, first off, thank you for appearing in the format so much. You've created a lot of memorable, obviously viral moments with Ben Shapiro. Charlie Kirk was where it started, and we can kind of unpack that since it's much more complex now. But, yeah, it's been interesting to see the show kind of be a launching platform for you as a thinker. From your perspective, has it felt that way, or is it just one of many things that you feel like you're Exploring?

[Naima]

Yeah. I mean, so just background about myself. I'm actually a film student. I'm in my last week at USC Film School.

[John]

Oh, congratulations.

[Naima]

Thank you. And when I first got there, I was like, I'm not gonna be an influencer. I don't wanna be an influencer. And, you know, I did not see this for myself. I think my main goal was to be a screenwriter and producer, which I still wanna do, very much so. But both of my parents are lawyers. My dad is actually a civil rights lawyer. He works a lot with the city of Newark on race, class and metropolitan equity. So I've always been like. I like to joke that I've been in law school for 23 years. So I always have really had an interest in these issues. And it's kind of been more of a side thing for me. Like, I never thought I would make a career out of, you know, debating and engaging in thought so much. But when the opportunity presented itself, I jumped at it. And I was shocked that it went so viral. I was not anticipating it. I thought it would just be, like, a fun thing to do on, like, a weekend. And it really is fun.

[John]

Your idea of fun is clearly shaped by growing up with lawyer parents.

[Naima]

Yes. I was like, it'll be fun to yell at conservatives. Why not? You know? So that just really changed my life. And now it's opened me up to the possibility of influencing and how much that my little niche of, like, political influencing really can affect people and impact people. And I found it to be very rewarding. So it's been really awesome.

[John]

Good, good. Well, when I. Because I actually pitched this kind of version of Surrounded, it was an idea that different directors had pitched when I worked at Jubilee. But when I pitched this version, part of the philosophy was, you know, hey, we want to test thought leaders, you know, who have a lot of influence on political culture online. But there's also gonna be this organic way of discovering new influencers. And so when I saw you kind of surface and kind of go back through the format, I was like, oh, wow. I was actually right. We are discovering voices through the format. So it was cool to see that happen and for you to be kind of one of the first instances of it.

[Naima]

Yeah, I mean, I have to thank my friend Shout out to Amanda. She's actually a camera op for Jubilee, and she was the who originally encouraged me to apply and kind of how I first got into the Jubilee network. So it's so funny. I always say a joke that me and her are, like, actually linked now. Because of this. But yeah, it's been really a joy getting to interact with so many people online, getting to kind of understand this world. I feel like I was kind of thrown into it because I wasn't really planning on being an influencer, you know, like, that was not a goal of mine, but it's been insane and very cool. Like, I didn't use TikTok and then I woke up one day with like 200,000 followers and I was like, oh my God, what do I do with all these people? What do you guys say to these people? So it's been a lot of trial and error. It's been a lot of self discovery through being so present online. But I feel like I've learned a lot about myself, about the world, and I really, I mean, it's cool. It's just sick as fuck, to be quite honest.

[John]

Nice. I love it. Well, yeah, it's very brave of you. The Internet is. It's a different thing now than it was I think, when I was your age. It's not as forgiving.

[Naima]

No, I grew up on Vine. People just made dumb faces and like, when you became famous.

[John]

Yeah, I grew up on Facebook. Like we posted our worst behavior and you know, know we dumped 200 photos at a time because the concept of being punished or canceled didn't exist yet.

[Naima]

The permanence of it didn't feel as, you know.

[John]

But yeah, you can still, somewhere out there, you could probably find like a. A box of like Keystone Light on my head at a party, on a face in a Facebook photo when I was young. It's embarrassing.

[Naima]

I definitely have some photos floating around in the ether that I hope no one not is.

[John]

Yeah, I mean, it's probably not the end of the world, but anyway, I. I wanted to bring you on this show because you've debated. You debated Charlie Kirk probably in one of the most, if not the most viral moment Jubilee's ever had. And we can kind of go through that exchange and, you know, watch it and get your reactions. But you've also debated Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro, and so are there any. There any other big ones that I'm missing? Those were the three I wanted to focus on.

[Naima]

I don't think so. I think those are the only three surroundings I've done.

[John]

Yeah, yeah, I want to.

[Naima]

They all kind of mix together at a certain point.

[John]

Yeah, no, I totally get that. So let's start with maybe kind of where it all began was your initial exchange with Charlie Kirk. We'll dig into kind of your stance on the Issue and the politics of it. But obviously there's a lot more to talk about. So I'll pull up that clip and then we can just see where it leads us.

[Naima]

Okay. Can I just ask, how many weeks do you think that a fetus is viable?

[Charlie Kirk]

Well, viability and moral worth are two different things.

[Naima]

No, but I'm asking you, at how many weeks do you think?

[Charlie Kirk]

Well, at about 20 weeks, a baby can survive outside of utero.

[Naima]

So it's actually 24 to 26 weeks.

[Charlie Kirk]

That's 20. The youngest ever in a NICU unit actually happened in San Diego not far from here and survived at 20 weeks.

[Naima]

Okay, so under Roe v. Wade, 93% of abortions happened in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy. That's 93% of the abortions happened well before a fetus is technically viable as a form of pregnancy.

[Charlie Kirk]

So let's go into viability. So what is it about, let's say a six week baby that has a heartbeat, its own DNA, fingerprint, brain waves, that is less moral worth than an 88 year old right now with dementia in a home down the street. That person requires assistance, requires help. Why is it that the six week baby is of less moral worth?

[Naima]

Well, first of all, it's not a baby, it's a fetus.

[Charlie Kirk]

What does fetus mean?

[Naima]

A fetus is in utero.

[Charlie Kirk]

What does fetus mean in Latin?

[Naima]

What the f. I'm sorry, is this language called?

[Charlie Kirk]

It means little human being.

[Naima]

His smile is very creepy.

[Charlie Kirk]

Okay, smiling is creepy.

[Naima]

No, your smile specifically.

[Charlie Kirk]

Got it.

[Naima]

But let's go back to. We're losing track here.

[Charlie Kirk]

No, but what species is the.

[Naima]

The fetus is not a species yet. It's technically classified as a parasite until it is viable.

[Charlie Kirk]

Now I want to talk to you about. I can't let you get past that. Are you saying a baby is a disease or a tumor?

[Naima]

A parasite is not a disease and a tumor, those are not the same thing. A parasite is defined as something that cannot survive outside of its host. A baby, before it is viable, cannot survive outside of a woman's womb.

[Charlie Kirk]

Got it. So let's extrapolate that it is not a living organism. Are old people with Alzheimer's and dementia that are being assisted every day, are they parasites?

[Naima]

No, they're not parasites. They're human beings who are on the brink of death.

[Charlie Kirk]

Got it. So my sister, they're not going to be my 4 month old that requires mom's breast milk and requires daily changes and feedings, cannot survive without its own. Is my 4 month old a parasite.

[Naima]

Your baby can breathe on its own. Your baby can drink water from its mouth to its stomach, but it can't.

[John]

Your baby can eat food.

[Charlie Kirk]

Can it hunt? Can it gather? Can it reason?

[Naima]

But that's not what qualifies something as

[Charlie Kirk]

being a living organism.

[John]

What. What is it like to. To watch that?

[Naima]

I've seen it so many times that this is why I'm. It's practically memorized in my head. But I think my favorite line in that is not even mine. But when he goes, can it hunt? Can it gather? Can it erase? That sends me every time. Because Charlie, Kirk, you know, your ass can't hunt or gather. I mean. Yeah, it just sends me so. Because we all go to the supermarket. Like, what are you talking about? I don't know.

[John]

Yeah. Well, it is interesting where. So I don't even know where to start, I guess, before we go into the argument, because if. If Charlie was still alive, I still think he would want us to rigorously investigate what you're debating. I guess. What does it feel like? Because I know that you released a statement, you know, immediately after he was killed, and you were like, this is a totally awful thing that happened.

[Naima]

Yes.

[John]

What is it like to. I don't know. As somebody who's helped make. Bring the show into existence, myself personally, I have pretty complex feelings. Seeing him in the video and being like, what part of his own trajectory was this? Do you feel that, like, stickiness that I'm describing?

[Naima]

Do you mean, like, platforming him a little bit?

[John]

No, I think I mean more just like emotions. Like, oh, that was where it was leading.

[Naima]

Oh, to his, like, untimely and very tragic death. I see what you're saying.

[John]

Yeah. Not that there was any responsibility, but just to be a part of that

[Naima]

trajectory, you know, I don't necessarily see it as being part of that trajectory because nobody else on Surrounded, whether they were in the hot seat or otherwise, has been, you know, assassinated as cruelly as he was, as publicly as he was. I think that, you know, I don't blame. Cause I've actually gotten some. Especially after he died, I got a lot of DMs of like, you did this? And I was like, no, I didn't, guys. I was asleep. What had happened, first of all. But, you know, I think a lot of people see him being in the public eye as being, you know, part of what. Like, why what happened to him happened to him. And Surrounded being a mechanism of that. But, you know, I disagree with that because I don't think that Surrounded has had that effect for anyone else. I mean, if this was a pattern of, like, people going on Jubilee, growing their platforms and then receiving dangerous and violent, you know, threats, hate, actual physical violence, assaults, then, you know, I would say, okay, maybe there is some kind of correlation here. But I don't think that, you know, Charlie Kirk being on Jubilee and Jubilee in and of itself was the mechanism of this violence. I think that what happened to him was a direct result of the kind of platform that he created, the rhetoric that he talked about. I also think that he chose to be in college campuses, in public, and obviously he has every right to debate there. It is his First Amendment right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression. But you know, him doing that versus like a Ben Shapiro having his own podcast to Candace Owens having their own podcast made it so he was much more vulnerable to public attacks, to physical attacks. So when I see this, I don't think that Jubilee or me or anyone else who debated him really has any responsibility in what happened to him other than Tyler. Really. I don't see us as kind of facilitating what happened to him in any way. So I don't feel bad about it.

[John]

Yeah, no, I appreciate you unpacking it. And for me, it's like, it's. It's just like a come. I guess I just didn't anticipate his story would be as tragic as it. As it ended up being. And for me, it just, it retints every media I see with him in it with a different kind of color. And I think it's just strange how that, how that works. But like I said, he would want us to rigorously actually dig into the debate you guys are having. And so abortion. Let's shift to that. You go towards viability in that clip immediately. Yes, I thought that made a lot of sense. Do you think that is the most important variable when it comes to maybe the. The conservative, more left debate of abortion and sort of why. Why it should be there?

[Naima]

Since I like debated Charlie Kirk, you know, and I've been unpacking different debate strategies. Like, I don't disagree with anything that I said in the clip. Neither did the fact check. But I, you know, I agree with everything that I was saying and I see the argument that I was laying out there in that clip of, you know, if something isn't viable, it shouldn't take moral precedent over the being that is keeping it alive and sustaining it. Like, you know, I see that argument that I've created. But it's funny because since the video people have often Told me, you know, don't go towards viability. Don't start your argument at viability, because we can't. There is no scientific consensus on when life begins. Right? So it's kind of. You're both arguing on a hypothetical because you can't. Neither of you can prove when life begins. And even if life begins at X point, a woman still deserves the right to choose. Right? Like, you should approach it from a place of, like, you don't have to prove that this fetus is viable or not. You have to prove that this woman's right to choose what happens to her body is more important than a fetus's right to hypothetical life. You know, so since that debate, I've definitely like kind of pivoted my strategy to focus more on what happens when women are not given access to abortions, how this is affecting those children. I'm sorry, there's a piece of fuzz in the air that's driving me crazy. Okay, I think I got it. But yeah, no, since that debate, like, I've definitely been taught to pivot. Like, instead of focusing on viability and trying to prove viability and how that equates to like, the morality of freedom of choice, I've been taught more to think about how does, how does the right to choose impact women? How are the lives of women and those children drastically impacted by abortion bans? Like, thinking about specific instances in which abortion bans have severely hurt women and their children. For example, I think there was a 12 year old, I forget which state who was. Somebody talked about it in this video. Yeah, it came up.

[John]

There was a 12 year old that I think would be forced to give birth under, you know, the new abortion

[Naima]

bans, who had been assaulted by, I think it was her father, her stepfather. So it was like both rape and incest of a minor and she still was going to have to give birth to. And then also since Dobbs now has had a little bit of time since that debate, we've seen the actual number of abortions in the US increase, which even with abortion bans, which is a huge point of contention, we've also seen the number of women trying to give themselves abortions increase. We've also seen the number of babies, newborns that have been abandoned in states in which there are incredibly high, incredibly stringent abortion bans increase. Right. So the argument now that I would present is less about like when a fetus is viable and more about how do these bans actually impact the women and the children who are subject to them? Because it's been. That's pretty fairly negative.

[John]

Right, right. I think, though, this is where I might push back, though, because I actually thought the viability argument made the most sense to me as somebody who I think is approaching a lot of these divisive issues, looking for where there could be compromise and I think, like, a constructive resolution. So, like, I do a lot of the host a lot of these jubilee debates, and so I'm always kind of seeing, like, where can we. Where might there be something where both people get some of their concern acknowledged? And the point that you made where you said, if we're using viability as kind of a framework, the majority of abortions happen before fetuses are considered viable in recent data sets. And so that, to me, actually seems like. While I agree with you and the people who have spoken to you, there's fuzzy science there. The fuzzy clarifying, the fuzzy science and being like, okay, what does viability mean and how are we measuring it? And, like, where is that sort of dotted line? That, to me, is the most tangible thing about abortion that I can really grasp. Because where Charlie went after that was kind of this, like, moral weight argument, which I thought got even fuzzier, where it's like, what makes a human valuable and what does the human need to be able to do? And it gets. It got like. I don't. Ultimately, where that goes is like, abortion can never be okay because emotionally, this potential for a human that's existing in mothers expecting just should never be extinguished. And if it is, it's the equivalent of murder. And that, to me, felt like a path that. That was towards too extreme of a resolution. So I guess I was. I was kind of impressed. I was like, oh, viability does actually seem like the thing that gets us somewhere. It doesn't get either side exactly what they want, but it gets somewhere.

[Naima]

Yeah. I mean, I guess what I would say if, like, you know, we've made great advancements in science and, like, scientifically, if a fetus were to be viable at 10 weeks, like, would we set the band for, you can only get abortions in the first 10 weeks? Like, I feel like viability can be a slippery slope sometimes, especially because I'm not a doctor or a biologist, and neither is Charlie Kirk.

[John]

Right.

[Naima]

Which I think was one reason why this became so fucking brain rot as a debate, because the whole. What does fetus mean in Latin? It's like, you don't know either. He was wrong.

[John]

Oh, does it not mean little human or tiny human? No, it doesn't mean I gotta look this up now. I gotta look this up.

[Naima]

It doesn't, I forget what it means, but I know it does not mean little human being.

[John]

Google completed my query before. It means bringing forth hatching, giving birth. So, yeah, it doesn't mean tiny human.

[Naima]

He really thought he got.

[John]

Oh, wow.

[Naima]

Yeah, yeah. So I think that, like, I mean, I agree with everything I said about viability. It's something that I do bring up in debates. Like, going forward, I think it is important to note that 93% of abortions happen before a fetus is technically viable to sustain itself. So it should fully be the mother's right because she is completely sustaining the potential life inside of her. So, you know, I think that that is a very strong argument, but I think I've just kind of started to expand on that argument as I've gotten more experience in debating, because it can create this kind of weird, like biological stalemate where me, who's not a doctor and somebody else who's not a doctor are debating things that we really don't have a level of expertise in. Like, we've researched it, of course, but

[John]

you know, that would be the time where it's like, okay, now we're going to bring in a doctor, we're going to bring in, you know, a study. But that being said, with whether or not that's the right place to carve the argument, we now live in a post Roe world. And so you are obviously somebody. Do you consider yourself like liberal, leftist? What would the political label be if you had to force a label onto yourself?

[Naima]

I mean, I definitely say leftist, progressive left.

[John]

Progressive left.

[Naima]

Yeah, yeah. My political compass was like a socio anarcha, something. So we don't have to go get into that.

[John]

You're over by head now.

[Naima]

Yeah.

[John]

Okay. So you're, you know, you're, you're very progressive. You're, you're far left. And obviously people like you are wondering what, what's the action? What's the game plan if we want abortion rights back? Essentially, because we now live in a post Roe world. What, what do you hear? Or what do you think is the, the way going forward? Because we're not really looking at a world where it's like, okay, let's bring it back. There's got to be kind of a new framework.

[Naima]

Yeah, I mean, I think that I've been generally kind of disappointed at how I feel like liberal lawmakers have kind of forgotten about it. Like, dare I say, I really don't hear people, especially in debates, talking a lot about The Dobbs decision. And, you know, as we've been, I think what's been going on that's been really detrimental to the party is Trump's presidency has thrown so much, so many humanitarian crises, like civil rights violations at the left.

[John]

The muzzle velocity is what they call it.

[Naima]

Yes. That it's, it's kind. I feel like the abortion debate has kind of gotten lost in the shuffle, you know, and it's become like, I think immigration, I think trans rights. I think these issues have taken much more of a forefront. Not that they shouldn't. They're very important, you know, not to downplay them, but I think that this is very deliberate on the part of conservatives to use Trump's power and just willingness to do really anything to push all these insane, you know, the Iran war, attacking Iran, closing the Strait of Hormuz, push all these things all at once. So it would force us to kind of ignore certain issues and they just kind of get automatic dubs, which I think is what's kind of happened with abortion. I think the left is so focused on the just litany and slew of issues that have happened in the last several. I mean, affirmative action, being a richer ruled, like everything, we've lost progress in everything.

[John]

But in, in that respect, it's almost like the left can't really focus because the left is still searching for its center. Yeah, it's like representative center. And then what are the issues? What are like, what's the kind of most actionable issues? And like you said, you know, Trump's sort of add, like fast paced news cycle that he's masterfully, you know, done throughout his political career. It does have a way of cementing in the changes that he does lock in. And the overturning of Roe is maybe the most. I mean, in a lot of respects, it might be one of the most lasting parts of his legacy because legislatively, he hasn't really passed a lot of legislation. He's not really interested in passing legislation. Neither is Congress underneath him. But getting a conservative majority court and to overturn Roe v. Wade is kind of. That's one of the most sort of like, fleshed out things he's brought into legal reality.

[Naima]

I agree.

[John]

Yeah. So it'll be really interesting to see where that goes. But before we switch to the next clip, do you have final thoughts on that issue just before we move on?

[Naima]

I mean, I am so disappointed by it because it's like my mom, my grandma talk about protesting for the right to choose and what a monumentous victory that was. For them. And now I feel like me and my children are going to be having this same fight over and over again. And I think that there is kind of a fatigue in having to re win rights that you already had. You know, I think that it's exhausting to have to keep going. Two steps forward, four steps back. Two steps forward, four steps back. I mean, progress is so difficult and challenging and very frustrating, especially when a lot of the people who are destroying this progress are men and are not going to be physically impacted by this legislation. But I hope that those of my friends who are watching this who are pro choice, don't get tired, don't get frustrated and use this setback as inspiration to fight even harder, because that's what I think they're expecting us to just kind of fold on it because we're exhausted and we can't do that.

[John]

Yeah, no, I, I, I appreciate the those thoughts. I'm, I'm tempted to keep asking more because it is such a complex issue, but I want to in this respective time. Let's move on and put a pin in that. But you and Charlie also talk about race and specifically the black community in America. When he invited you back to the

[Naima]

center, I was shocked. I did not think he was inviting you back.

[John]

Yeah, no, he clearly was enjoying the pushback that you were providing.

[Naima]

No, you know that meme where it's like the kid is pointing to something like this.

[John]

Yeah.

[Naima]

You know what I'm talking about. That's how I felt.

[John]

Yeah, no, I was kind of surprised too. But I mean, I do think something that he deserves some credit for is I think he was interested in where the, the true, like, friction was in an argument and going there. He wasn't interested in just like, talking to somebody who was gonna sort of concede.

[Naima]

I will say, in every other debate video I have done since the Charlie Kirk video, everybody else has picked someone who was not really debating them.

[John]

Yeah, no, I've seen, I've seen the same thing as well.

[Naima]

So I was shocked. I did not, I thought that. I was like, there's no way he's gonna pick me. I was like, oh, cool. I get to chill for 10 minutes. And then he's like, you. And I was like, all right.

[John]

Yeah.

[Naima]

Do I have like.

[John]

No, that was, it was expected. I actually just rewatched it this morning. I was like, oh, wow. Yeah, that, that was a bold pick.

[Naima]

It was fully unexpected. So I do I also give him credit for that. It was not what I thought he was going to do, but you know, he was down for it, which is interesting.

[John]

Yeah. Okay. And so this is where it goes. You know, you brought in your own claim and do you remember what your claim was? I think it'll be up in this.

[Naima]

Something about black people. And then I got. I got what Slavery ended wrong, which was fucking. That's haunted me for the past two years.

[John]

So your claim was affirmative action is constitutional.

[Naima]

Oh, right. Okay. Yeah.

[John]

So for me, you know, it's race adjacent, but it specifically. Charlie debates you and moves in a direction just specifically around the black community. So let's kind of re. Listen to that and then. And then hear, hear your thoughts.

[Ad Read Voice]

Eczema is unpredictable, but you can flare less with Epglis, a once monthly treatment for moderate to severe eczema after an initial four month or longer dosing phase. About four in ten people taking Ebglis achieved itch relief in clear or almost clear skin at 16 weeks. And most of those people maintain skin that's still more clear at one year with monthly dosing.

MGLIS Lebricizumab LBKZ a 250mg per 2ml injection is a prescription medicine used to treat adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 pounds or 40 kilograms with moderate to severe eczema, also called atopic dermatitis, that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical therapies. EBGLIS can be used with or without topical corticosteroids. Don't use if you're allergic to Ebglis. Allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. Eye problems can occur. Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems. You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with Ebglis. Before starting Ebglis. Tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection.

Ask your doctor about ebglis and visit eglis.lily.com or call 1-800-lilyrx or 1-800-545-5979.

[Naima]

What they did to your family. You're lucky to make it out alive.

[John]

Streaming on Peacock.

[Naima]

These men are going to come after me. Taking them out.

[Ad Read Voice]

It's my only chance.

[John]

Put a bullet in her head. From the co creator of Ozark.

[Naima]

Looks like a family was running drugs execution style.

[Ad Read Voice]

Killing it's rare for the Keys.

[Naima]

Any leads on who they might have been running for? The cartel killed my family. I'm gonna kill them.

[John]

Awesome, Mia. Streaming now only on Peacock.

[Ad Read Voice]

Your next Chapter in healthcare starts at Carrington College's School of Nursing in Portland. Join us for our open house on Tuesday, January 13th from 4 to 7pm you'll tour our campus, see live demos, meet instructors and learn about our associate degree in nursing program that prepares you to become a registered nurse. Take the first step toward your nursing career. Save your spot now at Carrington. Edu Events. For information on program outcomes, visit carrington. Edu Sci.

[Naima]

Yeah, so, okay, so I want to make a quick point.

[Charlie Kirk]

You're right. Black Americans are in prison far greater than a percentage of the population. So black Americans are about 13 to 14% of the population. About half of all prisoners are black. So blacks commit more crimes than whites do. They commit more murders, they commit more arsons. They commit more kidnappings. For example, blacks are 13% of the population and they commit 50, 58% of all the murders. That's not a war on drugs. That's a culture problem.

[Naima]

Okay, so let's talk about that culture. Black people have been legislatively subjugated up until 1965. I'll give it. I mean, honestly, it's later, but let's just say 1965. You do not think that 10 generations of legislative subjugation and slavery. During that time, 4,000 thousand black men, women and children are lynched as the result of race riots in this country? You do not think that these things have a lasting effect? We have had 10 generations of subjugation and four of legislatives.

[Charlie Kirk]

Of course they have an impact, but it's more on you to explain why things got worse since the Civil Rights Act. More violent, less fathers around, poorer. Why is that?

[Naima]

Because of mass incarceration and the unfair criminalization of black men.

[Charlie Kirk]

But let's just take murders, for example. Why are blacks are 13% of the population and commit 58% of the murders? Why is that?

[Naima]

Because people in affluent and whiter neighborhoods are not being policed at the same rate. There are more police.

[Charlie Kirk]

I'm talking about dead bodies. There's no. Like. We're not talking about policing. We're talking about murders. Why are so many blacks committing murders outside of their population?

[Naima]

Okay, let's take it back to some history.

[Charlie Kirk]

I'm curious for an answer to that question.

[Naima]

I'm going to give you one. So let's go to red line. Okay. Redlining.

[Charlie Kirk]

Redlining is why so many blacks are killing each other.

[Naima]

No, let me finish my claim and then you can respond. Is that okay? Okay, so redlining, federally mandated or sustained by the fha, Right. Separating black Americans to Specifically impoverished and relegated areas of the country. We are incapable of buying homes and putting equity into neighborhoods with lower crime rates and better educational systems. We do not have access to things that would uplift and help our community. When you are put in an environment that promotes and reinforces social and economic inequality, you become desperate and are forced to do things that maybe don't align with.

[John]

So you stopped it there.

[Naima]

Watch yourself back. And you're like, oh, please mention this. And then as soon as I said it, I said it.

[John]

I was like, oh, no, I'm glad that you feel that way. No. Yeah. So you feel. You feel strong about that argument. You still. You stand by that. You probably wouldn't change anything.

[Naima]

I mean, I would probably say it quicker. I was a little slow to the punch, but I was kind of like, oh, yeah, talk faster, please. But that's just me being overly crazy.

[John]

Much faster than me.

[Naima]

Yeah. New York.

[John]

Yeah. Well, here's something, though. So I get what Charlie is. I mean, he's painting a picture of, like, hey, there's concerning data about where black Americans are at. You know, there's concerning data and how they are represented in prison statistics, crime statistics, violence statistics. And so, like, the starting point, actually, I think is shared. It's. There's nothing that you say in your argument that really refutes. Yes, that is something to. To be concerned about. There's kind of this disagreement in sort of how to interpret how we got there. And if I were to say your argument back to you, just to make sure that I understand it, you're saying how the history of slavery, the history of Jim Crow, the history of discrimination codified into law has cemented a cultural decline or has cemented a disadvantage that would obviously be expressed in negative aspects within a culture, a high rate of violence or a high prison population because the black community is always coming from inequal footing. Is that sort of a. Does that sound like the argument that you were. You were making?

[Naima]

Not quite, but close. I think where I disagree with that is that I don't think that murder and violence are part of black culture. You know, I don't think we claim that as, like, an aspect of our culture. I think that that's also part of American culture, to be quite frank.

[John]

For sure. For sure.

[Naima]

Where I think the point that I was trying to make in that video is that where you have poverty, you have more crime. That is a fact regardless of race. Like in areas like Appalachia, where we see very high levels of poverty among white populations, we see very Similar crime rates as to places with high levels of poverty in black populations, poverty equals desperation. Desperation equals crime. When people no longer have the resources to put food on the table, they're not going to stay, starve to death. They're going to do something about it. And the more desperate they are, the more willing they are to break laws in order to get what it is that they need, because they need it. It's not, you know, a question like, can't just opt out of drinking water and eating food.

[John]

Right. And so it's kind of a. It's a matter of material circumstances really, more than anything.

[Naima]

So I think the argument that I'm trying to make, and I do wish that I brought up that point about white and black people who are in similar levels of poverty do show similar crime rates. But the point that I'm making is that black people have been systematically excluded from financial economic advancement, economic opportunities. We've been through Jim Crow, We've been kept out of unions. We've. Through redlining. We've been prevented from buying homes, putting equity into housing, which is one of the most like. Which is one of the best, most sustainable investments that a family can make. Right, yeah.

[John]

Generational wealth building.

[Naima]

Yes, yes. Been locked out of generational wealth building. And then through the loophole in the 13th amendment allowing free labor so long as it is done as a form of punishment, it's incentivized law enforcement to incarcerate black people at much higher rates in order to use our free labor, as we saw with the war on drugs. Right. So it's kind of a twofold thing. We've been kept out of economic advancements and we've been demonized for the sake of using our free labor. And both of these things have created a community that is desperate and poor, quite frankly.

[John]

Right, right.

[Naima]

Those who are desperate and poor are more inclined to commit crimes or violent crimes in order to get what they need to survive. And so then people like Charlie Kirk who don't really want to recognize that history of segregation, of exclusion, who don't want to recognize the present condition of exploitation that we are under through mass incarceration, like, you know, stop and frisk was this huge movement in New York that was all about stopping people and just like frisking them, the cops would just check to see if they had any contraband on them.

[John]

Right.

[Naima]

This happened.

[John]

It's kind of like a response to. Was that response to super predators? That's kind of like the 90s type of thing?

[Naima]

Well, it happened in my lifetime and it was disproportionately black and brown men, like, way more. Even though the population of New York is very diverse. Like, they had to. Cops had to fill a quota of people that they were frisking a day. And the majority of people who filled that quota were black people. And then when you add how AI adds to, like. Like, recidivism rates and like, the racism in AI, there's a whole lot that goes into keeping black people in prison.

[John]

Right.

[Naima]

So when you're like Charlie Kirk and you ignore the past and you ignore the present, it's kind of fair to say, oh, I see this problem, and I blame it on these people. They must just be committing crimes more because they have a culture of violence, when in reality, we're reacting the way anyone else would in this situation.

[John]

Yeah. And that argument, I think, makes sense to me, especially when it's grounded in kind of a material circumstance framework. As horrifying as slavery was, if you just think about it as a footing, a foundation of how a group of people started in their socioeconomic status, it would make complete sense that there would be a disadvantage that endured through several, several generations. And then if it was, if there's discrimination that also endures, it's further suppressing this group of people from achieving equity or equitable status in whatever country you're talking about. So if I were to put myself in Charlie Kirk's head or position in that moment and concede. Yes, what you're saying is. Is correct. There's. There's a history that must be acknowledged. I guess where the question that I have though is. And this is, I think, really tricky, is, okay, the black population is overrepresented in crimes that might be actually true. Black people are committing more crimes, but because of this legacy and this history that we're talking about. But still, then what. What are the most exciting or innovative ways to achieve equity for that group of people? That's. That's still kind of an open question. I think there was a lot of ideas that came around, maybe in, like, Biden years prior to 2016, but it's still sort of an open question. I'm curious, what comes to mind for you?

[Naima]

Well, firstly, I don't really think Charlie Kirk is interested in achieving equity for the black community. I mean, I. If he was, he wouldn't continue to call us the blacks. He said it maybe like six times in that video, which to me is very dehumanizing. Like, I'm not a crayon. You know, we're a group of people. We are black people. We are not the blacks. Right? I'm not a lump of coal. We are people. So we're not just a color. So I don't see him as really caring about creating equity for the black community, because I do believe that him and people who use that argument are blaming us for the situation that we are in now. They'll acknowledge the history, but they won't acknowledge the present discrimination. So, you know, yeah, it was bad before, but right now the shit that you're doing is on you, right? And that's not the case. So I think that the three things that we've seen that create to that create economic inequity the most are housing, education, jobs, right? And it's kind of a positive feedback loop between the three things. So, you know, a lot of the public education system is funded by property taxes. So if you're in a neighborhood that is very poor, if you're renting, right, you're not paying a ton of property taxes. So you're. The school system that your children have access to is going to be worse. It just is. You're going to see teacher shortages, you're going to see book shortages, you're going to see lack of resources. They're not going to have as many, like arts programs, extracurriculars, right. School lunches are going to be worse. Like, all of these things that hinder a child's ability to learn and grow to the best of their ability are not going to be there. So once your housing is kind of garbage, your school is going to be garbage. And if your school is garbage, then the opportunities you have in terms of, you know, college and then later on getting a job are also going to be garbage. So once you now are in a bad job, you can't afford to live anywhere but the shitty housing you grew up in, and you're back at the start, and now here are your kids going to those shitty schools, getting those same shitty jobs, living in that same shitty housing. So there has to be something that breaks this loop at some point in the loop, right?

[John]

And so this brings us to your claim, you know, affirmative action being kind of the proposed solution. The proposed break in the loop.

[Naima]

Exactly. It's one of them. I think that. I mean, I have issues with affirmative action because I don't think it does enough. I think that, like, early childhood education is one of the best places to kind of break that loop. And affirmative action is really only for the kids who are able to kind of do that on their own.

[John]

Right?

[Naima]

Because, you know, there's a lot of kids from that neighborhood who are just never going to apply to Harvard. Right. They're just not going to. So affirmative action is not going to really help those kids, and we want it to help all of those children, not just the best and the brightest.

[John]

Right.

[Naima]

But I mean, it's incredibly difficult. It's a really difficult conversation to have both economically and socially. I mean, some people talk about redistricting and allowing students in public, in districts where the public schools are garbage to bus into other places. I know Kamala Harris is a big proponent of that. You know, she describes herself as being a bused in kid. So that's one idea that certain people have had. Free lunches, like SNAP benefits, things like that at the home are ideas that people have. Changing up how schools are funded is a major way to do that. Combating electrification. Now, there's a lot. There's a lot we can do.

[John]

I like your idea, though. I mean, I think that is kind of a new. It's. It's a fresh. A new way to think about it is like, let's move the target further up. Part of the cultural backlash. So we're going to get into Ben Shapiro because. Identity. So now we're kind of entering the realm of, like, identity politics. And so, like, affirmative action could be kind of calling classified as like a form of identity politics. Yeah, we're trying to help this. This identity achieve equity or more equitable status. And so we're. We're, you know, we're. We're thinking about things on more of like a curve. But the thing about college is, like, it's so competitive. It's almost like a breeding ground for resentment. Like, oh, so and so got in. I didn't get in. And we've kind of lived through this back. This cultural backlash where you're a DEI hire is kind of like an insult you can throw at somebody. Like, you don't. You didn't really earn that. You got that because of your identity. And so we've lived through this backlash. And I kind of like your idea of maybe moving things further up because it might be further away from that sort of like that competitive nature. Like, we want all kids to. I don't know. There's something. There's something about that proposition that I think might kind of pull away from the toxicity of, like, once you're kind of an adult, it. Everything kind of turns into, like, why did this person get it and why didn't I? And we've seen sort of this like this backlash to it.

[Naima]

You would think that, but actually, like a lot of the busing programs that I was describing have been met with insane, insane amounts of backlash from parents who don't want their kids in school with students who come from. With black and brown students who come from poorer neighborhoods. It's like including in California, there have been several districts where parents have come out of the woodworks to protest the inclusion of these students who don't have as much financially. So, you know, you would think that it being kids would make people more forgiving and less animus, but no, we've seen a similar response to children. So I think it still has a lot of work to do in terms of, like, our, our approach to helping others who are less advantaged than us and the mechanism and the format of the program in and of itself.

[John]

So you bring up, I think, a really valid point. Like, maybe I'm being too optimistic here. Like, even when we talk about trying to achieve better outcomes for less advantaged groups earlier on in their educational journey, there's still tons of tension, there's still tons of resentment. And this kind of brings up, I think, just the question of, like, is identity politics as a way of talking about these disadvantages that are baked into our society? Is it a dead end? Because it, it evokes these responses. And so you had an exchange with Ben Shapiro about kind of just like whether or not we should just think of everybody as an individual or if acknowledging the identities of groups is a constructive way of achieving equity. So I'm going to play that clip for you and we can kind of dig into that. But it kind of segues. This topic segues into that, I think, really well.

[Ben Shapiro]

So, for example, ignite your taste with

[John]

new NOS Energy Grand Prix guava foot

[Charlie Kirk]

to the floor Energy with high speed tropical flavor. That'll shift you and your day into top gear. So keep your foot on the gas

[John]

in your hand on the NOS Energy

[Charlie Kirk]

Grand Prix guava and get after it.

[Ben Shapiro]

I'm Jewish. I don't think Jews are actually overrepresented in Congress. I don't think that we ought to decide exactly how many people in Congress are Jewish based on the Jewish population of the country. I think that's actually pretty silly way to do representation.

[Naima]

Well, we don't have to do it systematically, but fundamentally there is an issue with the fact that we are not fully represented. Like, the entire population is not represented. We have never had a black female president. I still have to pay taxes.

[John]

We've never had.

[Naima]

The whole concept is no taxation without. We have had a white male president.

[Ben Shapiro]

We've had, like, whether Jews count as white or not has been sort of an object of debate for quite a while.

[Charlie Kirk]

You do?

[John]

We do.

[Ben Shapiro]

Okay, you do. So, I mean, it depends according to whom, and that's a pretty recent development.

[Naima]

Okay, so basically everyone.

[Ben Shapiro]

It's a religion, Judaism.

[Naima]

Do you not agree that you were a white man?

[Ben Shapiro]

I mean, I think that it depends on the context in which we're discussing it.

[Naima]

So what are you, Ben? Are you not a white guy?

[Ben Shapiro]

I mean, I'm a man of Jewish ethnicity, which is sometimes grouped with white and sometimes not. I mean, that's the more accurate way to put it. But when we're talking grouped with. With Jews who are. Which is an ethnicity. Which is an ethnicity.

[John]

I mean.

[Naima]

So you're not white at all.

[Ben Shapiro]

I mean, again, it depends who's doing the grouping and how. I've seen Jews grouped with white and Jews grouped with not white. I've seen. And are we just pretending that doesn't exist? That's a reality. However, as far as your generalized point, which is that we are supposed to identify people by group identity, if we don't have a black female president, somehow black females have not been represented. So Barack Obama was in no way representative of black females because he's not a female?

[Naima]

No, he was. He was representative.

[Ben Shapiro]

So he was half representative. How do you do the math on this and why you shouldn't do the

[Naima]

math on it completely statistically, but the fact is you shouldn't do the math

[Ben Shapiro]

on it at all. Clearly, you should treat people as individuals.

[Naima]

Well, if you don't even want Kamala Harris to attempt to create DEI initiatives in office, then there isn't even going to be a conversation about it.

[Ben Shapiro]

I mean, I don't think there ought to be a conversation about why we ought to be represented by race or by sex. I think that we are each individual people with individual ideas. And if that person represents my ideas, I don't care what sex, race, or sexual orientation they are.

[Naima]

I mean, to an extent, yes, there is an issue with the lack of empathy in office. We need to be able to empathize and legislate for the people that are living in this country.

[Ben Shapiro]

Do you not believe that I was not aware that empathy is relegated to particular race solidarity?

[Naima]

No, but I mean, it's easier to be empathetic towards people whose experiences you can fundamentally understand based on your identity. Like, do you not believe that people have an inherent bias? So, first of all, identity.

[Ben Shapiro]

I mean, we can Start with the empathy itself. I'm not sure that empathy is always the best basis for actual public policy. Because when you have group solidarity and empathy based on group solidarity, you're going to attempt to actually benefit the group with whom you have solidarity. So that actually cuts against general.

[Naima]

That's like a fundamental thing that just exists, which is why we need representation in government.

[John]

Okay. So that. That's. There's interesting tension there that comes to your mind.

[Naima]

That's so funny to me. Well, the first thing that comes to my mind is actually Nick Fuentes.

[John]

I was thinking of Nick Fuentes, too. Why?

[Naima]

Well, he reposted that clip, which was shocking to me, and I was like,

[John]

oh, no, no, no, no.

[Naima]

Nick Fuentes, please don't. No, because Nick. Me and Nick Fuentes have had, like, weird interactions in the past because he hates Ben Shapiro, because he hates all Jewish people. So whenever I debate Ben Shapiro, he gets really excited about it. And I'm like, wait, we are. No, that's not the point that I'm making. But he.

[John]

But that is interesting, because it does. Okay, so if we're talking about purely aesthetics, when you say, do you not consider yourself a white guy? I completely see what you're saying. I'm like, anyone's going to look at Ben Shapiro and be like, that's a white man. But when we're talking about the more complicated identity politics, when we're talking about, like, Jewish people and Israel and foreign policy and Nick Fuentes, all of a sudden there's kind of like, like a different calculus going on. And Nick Fuentes would never ally himself with Ben Shapiro. But is that a racial thing or. It's not really. It's more of, like an ideological thing.

[Naima]

I mean, it's kind of three. Like, it's. It's the intersection of, like, nationality, ethnicity, and race. Right? Like, there are people. I think Ben Shapiro's point kind of fucked him a little bit with the whole Nick Fuentes signing with me thing. But. And people being like, aha. Well, so the reason why Nick Fuentes reposted it is because Nick Fuentes is a white supremacist. But there is this issue of being a Nazi and a white supremacist at the same time, because there are white Jews. So if you believe that you are a white supremacist and a Jewish person is white, but you also hate them, it kind of creates this weird like, well, where do they fit in my framework of white supremacists, of white supremacism? So if this Jewish man is Saying, well, I'm actually not white, then Nick Fuentes's worldview is now corroborated because he thinks that anyone who is not white sucks and anyone who is Jewish sucks. So if Jewish people aren't white, then he can maintain his white supremacy and his Nazi beliefs without having to deal with where white Jews fit into that. Because none of them are white, allegedly, according to Ben Shapiro. But.

[John]

Oh, interesting that.

[Naima]

So that I think is kind of where Nick is coming from of like, see, if you're not white, then you are deeply inferior. I proved it. I did it like you proved it for me. But to his. To Ben's point in the video, I think that he's doing a disservice to black Jews. First of all, like, RuPaul, Charles is one of my. I don't know if you know him from RuPaul's Drag Race. He is very visibly black, and he is also Jewish. Right. And so for him, he is going to deal. A man who is visibly black and also ethnically and religiously Jewish is going to be dealing with two different types of discrimination. Right. Anti Semitism and racism. Whereas Ben Shapiro is not. Ben Shapiro is just going to be dealing with antisemitism. Not that that is at all good or less than, but it doesn't fully accommodate the levels of racism that people are going to experience based on the body that they're in. Right. There's no nuance to it. And I think that's what Ben is lacking, because he doesn't want to admit that he has white privilege. That's why he's not calling himself white, because he doesn't want to acknowledge white privilege. Because if he does, then it gives points towards my DEI argument, which he doesn't want to give, I think.

[John]

Okay, so I think I agree with that. There's a lot. You're right. There's a lot of things intersecting here. I don't know if I fully understand why Ben, conceding that he's maybe sees himself as more like ethnically Jewish than, like, quote, unquote, white, supports the Nick Fuentes argument. Because I don't. I don't think Ben or Nick want to really be seen as on each other's teams because they are so ideologically opposed. But I guess where my mind goes to, if I'm just. This is really complicated. The intersection of all these identities is really complicated. Like you're saying with RuPaul, there's a Jewish lens that needs to be acknowledged. There's the ethnic lens that needs to be Acknowledged like racism, anti Semitism, it, it is all very, very complex. And so that I actually think does lead me towards understanding what Ben is saying is identity politics as a basis for legislation maybe is not a good ground. Because how can, how can we know that whatever group is in power is not going to default towards their preferred group, which is most likely going to be their own identity?

[Naima]

Well, that's exactly what I'm saying. Right, because we know sociologically tribalism is a thing. People prefer those who share common ancestry to them, who look like them, who share a history with them, a religion, a race. People naturally prefer and favor those people. That's not something that we can necessarily prevent. But that's why it's important to have representation in government that is diverse. So there's no group that's receiving unfair preference because a vast majority of their group is represented in government. Like if everyone in government is white and we know that white people have a tendency to prefer other white people and favor other white people and think about the needs of other white people more and prioritize those needs, then we have to see black people in government. We have to see Asian people and Native American people and Hispanic people in government. Because we know that without representation of our race, we can't just rely on other races to make us as much of a priority legislatively because historically and socially we just don't do that as a species.

[John]

But I guess what Ben, what I think Ben is arguing is how can you create legislation that acknowledges race without I guess, like how do you get there in the form of legislation? Because like, is it always the majority? Like is the word majority and minority instead of like white and black, you know, so that it like sort of can scale beyond. Let's just fast forward to the future when the majority of Americans population is brown and not white. Like let's just assume far in the future whites are no longer the majority. What kind of laws do we need to design now where the language would apply then like the same intention would apply then without being too specific about races. Because if we make laws where it's like we need to have a one to one representation, like if 20% of the population is black, then 20% of lawmakers also need to be black. Like is that, are we creating bad incentives in government where then like later down the road there's going to be this sort of abuse of that logic, abuse of that, that style of legislation. Do you see what I'm saying?

[Naima]

Well, I think that's kind of like a white replacement theory. Argument of like, you know, I'm afraid of if we don't, I mean like as we've seen historically, like if you look at South Africa as an example. Right. South Africa has a vast majority non white population, yet power was concentrated to this white minority, which enabled them to exploit the black majority. Right. And to oppress that black majority. So it is all, it's not really about population numbers itself, it's about legislative power and representation in government. Because even as a minority you can still exploit a group that is larger than you so long as you have a majority where it matters. Yes, of power. So I think that it's a difficult system to quantify and like I said in my debate with Ben, like, I don't think it should be exactly a one to one. And it would take a lot of legislators, a lot of thinkers, a lot of policymakers to come up with a system that was truly fair, equitable and representative of all races. Just specifically because, you know, it's not something that I'm just going to like pitch like, yeah, let's just do a one to one because I think it's much more complex than that. I totally agree and I think there's a lot that we have to consider, but I think that it's about, it's about internalizing the belief that people need to be represented in government by those who share their identity. Maybe we are, I'm not entirely sure on what policy would create that, but it's more so about accepting the ideology and the necessity of that. Right. Our country was founded on that belief of no taxation without representation. Meanwhile, you know, my ancestors weren't even considered people at the time. Right. So our country understands and values the importance of representative government. It's like what we've stood on since 1776 and even before we fought for this, we've died for that. Right. But now that this country has expanded to be more diverse, we don't really see that same incentive to represent everyone equitably in government. So it's not necessarily that I'm trying to propose legislation, it's that I'm trying to propose an idea that I think and a value that I think everyone should have. We should all value seeing ourselves represented in government, seeing our identities represented in media, because there is power. Seeing ourselves represented in the private sector, in CEOs, you know, in C suite executives. All of these people should be representative of the population because they have so much power over us. And if their priorities, because almost all humans prioritize those who look like Them and share their identity and share their history. If we all do that, then we know that it's a necessity, which is kind of the point.

[John]

Yeah, no, and I, that makes perfect sense. And I like that idea of it as a value that's like a value we want to instill. That's sort of the ideal pluralistic open society we want to have.

[Naima]

Yes.

[John]

Something that now that we kind of have Nick Fuentes on the mind. When I think of Nick Fuentes, though, I see him as a manifestation of a white identity politics backlash to what was a cultural attempt to achieve equity through DEI and a form of well intentioned identity politics. That makes me wonder if the better lens that you brought up earlier of class is actually the way to prevent a backlash like Nick Fuentes of having sort of justified grievances or the appearance of justified grievances. Because if the goal is to always make sure that we're, we're trying to prevent like power from accumulating just in the wealthiest class, that in the present would be a benefit to a large portion of brown and black people. But it wouldn't be. The race wouldn't be like sort of written into the law. It would be more of like you're saying this value of like, we want to make sure that we're not letting power concentrate in the people who have the most. But like class might be the best way to achieve that in an enduring way, no matter the racial dynamics of the society.

[Naima]

You know, I have this debate a lot with my communist friends because some of them believe that like, you know, by focusing on the issue of race, we are ignoring class consciousness and we're creating a divide that doesn't need to exist between lower class white people and lower class black people, black and brown people.

[John]

I'm sorry, I just, I laugh because you're like when I debate my communist friends and that just as a way to start a sentence, like maybe chuckle. I'm sorry.

[Naima]

Yes. No, it's okay.

[John]

You have this debate with your friends. I have communist friends too. It's like a new phenomenon.

[Naima]

But anyway, yes, I do. And I do mean my communist friends. You know, we have this kind of argument about like whether or not it's important to deal with identity politics and class consciousness. And I would say I think you kind of have to do both. I don't really think that you can forget about racism when it comes to classism. I think that if this was a different country, like if this was Sweden, then I would say absolutely, we should be focused on class. You know, but this country has a very long history of racism. I think that this country is much more racist than people like to give it credit for. I mean, as we've seen with the attacks on, like, teaching about race theory and the history of racism in schools, as we've seen attacks on immigrants, specifically brown immigrants, as they've come to this country, even though we've encouraged that immigration multiple times throughout our country's history and now kind of have backtracked on it and decided to villainize them despite actually benefiting from their labor. We see this with mass incarceration today. We see this on pulling back affirmative action and being seen as unconstitutional. Like, we have seen an attack on race when you have an openly racist president in office. The fact that Trump can be so openly racist and still get elected means that there are just millions of people in this country who don't really care that much about racism and how it's impacting minority communities. And you can say the same thing, honestly, about really any issue of identity. You could say the same thing about transgenderism and the LGBTQ struggle. Like, all of these groups of people, in a way, could be used to say, like, oh, they're distracting from the real issues, which is classism. Right. And their identities are so enraging to people that it's hurting the cause, you know?

[John]

Yeah, but no, I. This is. It's like, such a. Okay, so. But with class, I guess what I'm saying is race is baked in, because if you're addressing the inequities in class, you're also addressing the inequities of that are distributed among race, because, you know, that. That's like. Like, class is sort of the outcome of the racism. And I guess what I. What I'm saying is, as a society, I wonder if we're. Are we perhaps expecting too much of a large population to be able to. Can we really expect the United States to come to a consensus on its history of racism in a uniform enough way for race to be the target through legislation? I guess the last 10 years has made me actually really skeptical of that. I think if you rewind 10 years ago, I think I would be more on your page. And what you're saying now and being like, no, there needs to be more of a reckoning of our. Our history with racism and slavery. But the last 10 years has made me wonder, is that actually possible? And. And is maybe focusing on class a way to just get it baked in without. Without the Nick Fuentes backlash?

[Naima]

I think that Nick Fuentes would Exist regardless. But what I will say is, you know, it has to be right? It has to be. It's not really an option. Like so long as black men are being torn from their families, families are being destroyed over non violent offenses. So long as black men and women are being killed at the hands of the cops without a trial by a jury of their peers. Like so long as we are afraid to call the police. Like I've never called the police in my fucking life and I probably never will. Like, like, you know, so long as we are afraid to use social services like that. So long as we are denied access to loans that are fair based on our income solely and specifically on the basis of race preventing us from buying houses. Like the 2008 recession affected the black community so much worse because we were given these very predatory loans because we were black, because no one else would loan to us, right? Because we were black. And so, so long as we have all these tangible negative impacts on my community, I cannot not try. It's not an option for me. Right? Like my father is currently trying to get, he needs a kidney transplant. And because he is black, the level at which his, I think it's called GFR or like his kidney functioning has to be at in order for him to be eligible for a transplant is lower than that of a white person. Despite the fact that physically and medically we are the same. Right? I mean my uncle died because he didn't have access to healthcare. He had cancer, he refused to go to the doctor because he didn't have healthcare. Through like these things have real lasting consequences on my community. Like this is life or death for a lot of people. So, you know, I understand the desire to focus on class. I see the necessity to do that and I encourage others to, especially if that's their niche. But for me, it's like I'm fighting for the rights of my family who need these rights now, who needed these rights yesterday. It's not really a choice for me to just focus on class because I'm watching my community suffer and I'm watching the people I love die. Literally. You know, I'm.

[John]

Obviously that's terrible to hear about with your, your dad. And I'm sorry you guys are going through that. I'm sorry he's going through that.

[Naima]

He has great health insurance, so he's doing okay. And they're figuring it out by the way, like he's going to be fine.

[John]

But in no way would I think that that would be acceptable either, I guess, like what you're saying is, like, how can a person of one ethnicity have a different qualifying bar for coverage versus another identity? Like, if that's baked into insurance, insurance calculations, I would consider that discrimination and a poor.

[Naima]

Yeah, well, that one is more baked into, like, medical practices. Like, a doctor will recommend when you need a transplant based on what level your functionality is at. And for black people, that level has to be lower. Right. And we see also with black women, we are, I believe, four times more likely to die during childbirth.

[John]

Yeah. The mortality rates for black women is terrible.

[Naima]

Yeah. So, you know, it's killing us. So it's not really like, it's not that I don't think we should be focused on class. I do believe that there are people who are much more equipped to do that and who I encourage to do that. Honestly, I prefer it when white people do that. I don't necessarily enjoy white people always fighting on my behalf because sometimes they misspeak for my community, and it's. It's not really helpful. So, you know, it got cringy.

[John]

It got really cringy for a while.

[Naima]

The black screens, I was like, oh, my God, guys, please stop. Please stop. It's yes, the virtue signaling. Like, there are a lot of instances, including in this debate, actually, with some of the contestants there who I'm not gonna name.

[John]

No worries.

[Naima]

Who I was like, please stop. Yeah, no, but I think that's just like, for me, it's like, I know what I need to do. I hope that there are people out there who continue to focus on class and creating class consciousness, but I To defend my people because they need it now.

[John]

You know, I totally get that. I think for me, I'm really, like, marinating in the outcomes of the last 10 years and really questioning, like, what is the tactic that actually achieves the outcomes that we want. And one of them being, you know, lowering this delta between health outcomes, financial outcomes across different races, and especially within the black community. Because the black community is just that delta in wealth, in health has existed in this country for so long. And so that's.

[Naima]

We're also exhausted.

[John]

Yeah, but like, you're saying, you know, the black squares, like, if race is the forefront, like, I wonder if that incentive actually creates these cringy. Like, it turns people into, like, wanting a virtue signal rather than, like, craft real ideas that generate an outcome. I guess that that's where my head's at. But I appreciate

[Naima]

white people from being cringy. That one I can't solve for you, but.

[John]

Well, but that's what I Wonder, does identity politics generate that cringiness? Because it's a bad social incentive.

[Naima]

But again, that's why we need representation from black people. Right. Because I'm speaking on behalf of, like, my lived experience. It's not cringy when you're sharing your lived experience. So I think what's cringe about white people is that they want to help, but because they're the only voices in a space, they end up speaking on behalf of us. And the shit they're saying is wrong and annoying. Right. So that's, again, why we need to focus on creating representation. When we're having these conversations about identity politics and when we're creating legislation that we know is going to impact certain communities of color, of. Of, you know, ethnicity, of sexuality. Right. Of gender, it's important to center those voices who are speaking from personal experience, because otherwise it does come off as cringy. It comes off as virtue signaling. It comes off as. You're doing this. Yes. You're doing this to satiate your need to be a good person.

[John]

Right, Right. Exactly.

[Naima]

Yes.

[John]

Yeah.

[Naima]

So, yeah, and we've just had enough

[John]

of that, I think.

[Naima]

Yes. Yes, we have. So just kind of bringing it back to, you know, my initial debate with Ben. That's why we need people to be representative in government. That's why we need people to be representative in these conversations. Because if they're not, it's just people talking in an echo chamber who don't really know what they're talking about. And then eventually they're gonna create legislation, and it's like, oh, God, please, no, please stop. You know?

[John]

Well, and I think I really agree with. With what resonates with me a lot from your argument with Ben, and I. I really wish that debate could have gone on because I think you. I felt like you were both coming to it in good faith, even though from very different places. Is that lack of acknowledgment, wanting to just brush past the acknowledgement that, yes, these disadvantages exist, and we need to just, like, in the conversation, voice them. I think that's a disadvantage to what Ben is trying to argue as well, because it's like, you can't. We can't just say, oh, I only want to focus on the individual, and I don't even want to talk about that these. These deltas or these inequities exist because that in and of itself is like sort of. It's like almost willful. Willful ignorance. So I think. I think. Yeah. So I.

[Naima]

That resonates, you know, optimism is a very white optimism. Right. Like he believes that of course people are going to be empathetic towards me and government because they are, they are empathetic to him in government. You know, like he has never really had to deal with, outside of, you know, anti Semitism in government, which is not a small issue. But outside of that, he doesn't really have to deal with what it's like to be kind of forgotten or intentionally hurt by legislators. Right. That's not his. Like, as a woman, and I know what that feels like. Like when Dobbs hit, we were devastated. It was devastating. Right. Like as a black person, I know what that's like. When affirmative action was repealed, it was devastating. So I think a lot of his belief is kind of couched in that. Like I can be optimistic cuz I don't know what happens when I'm not represented in government. I've never not been represented in government, you know, So I do think that there is kind of a willful ignorance in the part of his. And I don't mean to be so pessimistic, but I do think that, you know, as I've experienced in my life, when we are not in government, when we are not in positions of power, power will be taken from us. So, you know.

[John]

Yeah, well, I mean, that does track with our history, so that must be acknowledged. Naemet, thank you so much for going this long with me and really digging into these. I wasn't expecting us to go this long, but I'm glad we kind of like really dug into.

[Naima]

Sorry, I'm a yapper. I have a mat.

[John]

No, it's okay. I loved it. I'm a yapper too. And I wanted to get into Candace Owens, but to be honest, there was just so much with Charlie and Ben and those all kind of flowed into each other. So maybe we'll do another one of these.

[Naima]

Wonderful. Yes, I'd love to be back.

[John]

Yeah. And like I said, it's awesome to see you kind of like using Jubilee as a launchpad. I hope it inspires more people to do it because that's sort of the goal of the channel is to just like, you know, be a platform for new voices. And you've been a really dynamic and impactful one. So thank you so much.

[Naima]

Well, thank you for having me. I really appreciate it.

[John]

This won't be the last time we chat. And looking forward to seeing you in person on a set IRL sometime.

[Naima]

Amazing. Bye, John.

[John]

Bye, Naima. If you want to see more follow up episodes of Surrounded, be sure to like leave us a positive review. Comment if you're watching the video on YouTube, you can subscribe to Tubli, Jubilee's second channel. You can also subscribe to Jubilee to see full surrounded episodes. But however you want to support us, just thank you so much for listening. Remember, you could be wrong, so could I. Keep your mind open until next time.