3: How Does The World REALLY Work with Bo Burnham | Art, Jargon & International Relations Theory

Join me, Bo Burnham & Socko as we try and figure out How The World Works? Spoiler: It’s complicated. Bo tries to tell us that “The secret is the world can only work, when everything works together”, but more than stating a fact, I believe Bo may be wishing the world worked that simply. This is a deep dive on just 1 song on Bo’s Netflix Special: “Inside” titled:“How The World Works”. This podcast works as a response to my original YouTube video. 

We Discuss: 

• Realism VS. Liberalism Debate in International Politics. [The question are humans good or are they evil is a question as old as time. But as we all know the world is not so black and white]
• Bo Burnham’s nod to Marxist Critique on capitalism: Seeing exploitation through a global lens. Many times, exploitation is thought of as a national issue, but our world is a global economy and when valuing human rights we must look further than our own backyard.
• Bo’s “Neoliberal Fascists ’  Destroying the Left” Argument : Discussing the Left VS. Right Divide & how harmful the Us VS. Them mentality can be.
• History’s Bias taught to children in class [In terms of Racism, Classism & Nationalism]
• Critique on the use of Jargon by Socko (Could Socko be alienating Bo in the conversation? This could be an explanation for the tense argument)

Transcript

0:00 Hello! I'm Reese :) Welcome to the Adventure With Me Podcast! And I'm so excited to talk about Bo Burnham's Inside. Bo Burnham is so self-aware it hurts! I really enjoyed this comedy special, and just for this podcast, I'm only going to be talking about his singular song: How The World Works. To do a deep dive analysis, because it's just my favorite~ And it really piqued my interest the most. He talks about a lot of international relations type of jargon and there's such broad topics, so I wanted to discuss the many different types of ways his statements can be interpreted here.

Now like every episode I gotta preface it with some kind of statement. When I originally uploaded my reaction type video, I got a resounding amount of positivity! And just so much incredible and intelligent comments and discussion. And if you're here from that previous video hello and thank you <3. And don't worry, we're going to be expanding and going into a deeper dive on that video so if you like the last one you're still going to get new information from this one. And i'm sure you won't be disappointed!

As always, the source notes and links are available on helloreesee.com! Keep adventuring with me reese on h-e-w-w-o-r-e-e-s-e.com. Since this podcast will be copyrighted if I play the song, I'm just gonna recite the lyrics, don't worry, I will not sing them *giggle* okay.

So, Bo starts out the song by saying “the secret is the world can only work when everything works together.” I find that line really interesting because in international theory one of the first things that you learn is that there's two major schools of thought. Liberalism and realism. Realism asserts that people have to defend themselves from others--- think guns bombs and rockets. We get along because we are threatened by one another. And liberalism asserts that the world works because of interconnectivity or as Bo says “when everything works together”. Interesting enough, I learned that in international relations space the majority of the most prolific theorists believe that realism is how the world works. We work together because we are afraid of what we can lose, yet in the basic public we believe that things work because we work together.

3:10 And a lot of people in the youtube comments who are interested in the realism versus liberalism debate--- since I spent years studying international relations it didn't really occur to me how appalling that this reality is that for hundreds of years even scholars were seeing the world in such black and white terms. Like, the questions are humans good or are they evil just is a question as old as time. But, it's really not so simple. It's not so black and white. As all of us know. And that's why theories such as constructivism and the aesthetic are so popular in this day and age!

Constructivism is seeing the world through particular lenses and not black and white thinking is the world good or is it bad but we experience life differently because of our economic background--- because of our education, because of where our parents may have been born. The same people can be going through the same situation but have different thought processes that lead them to different conclusions despite having experienced roughly the same experience. So, for example, a religious person can view a traumatic experience as a test from god, while a non-religious person wouldn't think that way. 

The aesthetic however is basically constructivism, but viewing life through art. For example, Lady Gaga put the aesthetic point of view perfectly! She said: “I put on one concert but it's seen thousands of different ways.” And she's right! Each person is listening to the same lyrics, they see the same performance, but experiences that art differently based on their own life experiences. People hear a lyric and they connect it to their childhood, or their partner, and nobody can share those memories but we can share this vague sense of community and sharing similar feelings. And it's something so Botiful and honest that humans need to understand about each other. Perhaps we can never truly feel another person's emotions, because we do not know their experience, even though they may tell us. But in attempting to empathize with that, we can create a more understanding world.  And not act like realists who try and blow each other up all the time. Okay, anyways… I digress. I can go on for days about these philosophical arguments.

But Bo continues on with the song explaining about things in biology, and understanding how the world works from a biological lens. So he says “A bee drinks from a flower, and leaves with its pollen. A squirrel in a tree spreads the seeds that have fallen, everything works together. The biggest elephant the littlest fly, the gophers underground the birds in the sky. And every single cricket every fish in the sea gives what they can and gets what they need. I think it's really smart that Bo puts a bunch of examples about, you know, things happening in biology where everything is seemingly just working together, seamlessly.

But the thing that is so frustrating, but also Botiful about humanity is that humans have the ability to think deeper about philosophical concepts and bees don't do that. But maybe, this is how a biologist or a beekeeper has the deepest understanding about how the world works. And it's a good reminder that we all see the world through our own lenses as we discussed earlier. 

And sure, we can talk about how the world works, but for everyone the world works a little bit differently. For example, if you have privilege, if you're a refugee, if you speak the nation's native language as a second language. You're going to see the world through different experiences. And that doesn't make either experience invalid. And in trying to make the world a more understanding and peaceful and inclusive space we need to learn to listen and communicate and try to empathize.

7:00 Now, in my YouTube video i kind of skipped over the line  “gives what you can and gets what you need” line at the very end of the stanza. And I had so many excited people like “Oh! That's a nod to Marx in the last line!” 

If you don't know, philosopher Karl Marx is very famous! And he is a philosopher who critiqued capitalism for basically being inhumane because it boils down people to workers instead of people with deeper needs. Famously he states “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs” which really echoes Bo’s  line of “get what you can and get what you need”. So that slogan is popularized in 1875, the principle refers to free access to the distribution of goods, capital, and services. So people have this like baseline of things that they need and Karl Marx thinks that those should be provided to people. Many people who believe capitalism is a positive economic concept say so because it improves innovation and that's something that you give up uh with Karl Marx's more communist point of view. 

Capitalism asserts that things keep getting better and better because of innovation. People want to make more money than another person, so they want their product to be better and it encourages people to seek to make better products in the pursuit of money. So, people who are on capitalism’s side always say: “Even workers have the opportunity to make more capital because there's never going to be a lack of work because of innovation!” But, the issue that we're having now is the automation of workers jobs and manufacturing. Because you see, yes we can innovate, and we can make things/ products better. But sometimes, in the pursuit of money, it makes other things go at the bottom of the list. Such as workers rights, the environment can be at a detriment because we are valuing the making of goods and the pursuit of money over environment or people's well-being.

Marx on the other hand, argues that goods can be given out by the state. For example, you'd have a basic cell phone that provided by the government and you give up the opportunity to have a fancier cell phone option so that everyone can be provided for as a basic necessity. But here is the really really really important part here, there is no pure economic system that exists today or that has ever existed. The US is not a purely capitalistic country, we still have social welfare such as free school lunch for kids who live below the poverty line, free bus passes for kids who again live under the poverty line, section 8 housing exists where the government provides subsidized housing or cheaper housing for people who are struggling financially, food stamps, unemployment, social security, veterans assistance, the FAFSA college tuition fund in the United States. Those are all socialist programs. And countries that are deemed “communist” are not purely communist. For example, China is not a purely communist economy. They have a flourishing market, and privately owned businesses. Even countries like North Korea, you think they're supposed to be completely communist. But they have flourishing black markets through the selling of Chinese goods. Because they share a border between North Korea and China. People run taxi services in North Korea for a profit because their economy is not sustainable as a communist government, because the north korean government cannot provide for them, so they must provide for themselves through private markets.

So I am saying this to say that there is no perfect economic or social theory, and no pure economic system exists. So to discuss and critique all of them is the best way to go to find the best solutions. For example, Scandinavian countries and those are countries such as Denmark Norway and Sweden are economically and socially said to be doing the very best. With a mix of socialism while still having a market. So those countries are said to have the most amount of time for parental leave, and they have a lot more social programs in the way that they manufacture goods, even Ikea. They value a sustainable way of making goods so it's not valuing money first and foremost, it's valuing people's lives and the environment. And it has been said that during a pew opinion poll that Scandinavian people are the most happiest people. So,  that goes to say something.

12:45 So now, moving further in Bo's song, Bo brought out a sock puppet, and I was like “Sir, this is a heavy topic, and I am shook.” But he literally starts out the song by saying “Hey kids!” But I I…missed that in the beginning of the song, when I first listened to it. So, anyway we are introduced to Bo while he's singing the song, he brings out a sock puppet and named it Socko.

When Socko is on Bo's hand, Socko states that Socko himself is “in a frightening liminal space between states of being”. So, there are two different ways in which you can interpret that. One is kind of a parallel to how children are. They regurgitate things that we tell them, and at first a child's existence before they grow up and make their own decisions for themselves are largely based around what everyone around them tells them to think. And then further, Socko is just being represented as a child or as a person who regurgitates things they hear or Socko can conversely be seen as a mirror, instead of an independent separate concept. As Socko being a sock puppet on Bo's hand, he is an extension of Bo’s character himself. Socko can be part of himself that's put on as a show when you need it, that part that is only there when you need it, and can be easily removed. But other than that, is put away and disposed of. Especially because of how difficult and nuanced these feelings that he's about to talk about are.

And after watching this performance, and listening to his song many times, I'm leaning more over on Socko not being part of Bo per se, but Bo being in a position of power over Socko where he can choose to let Socko speak or not. And that's a dangerous position for Socko to be in.

14:20 So Socko goes on to explain how the world works to Bo by saying “The simple narrative taught in every history class is demonstrably false and pedagogically classist”. So pedagogy is the practice of teaching. So Socko is saying that we learn history through a classist lens. And class is a really interesting way to describe how history is taught. But yes! I would totally agree that education in the United States especially can be classist. Because if you live in a neighborhood with nicer housing you go to a better funded school and thus get a quote-unquote better education. However I would say that in the broader world view lens history is widely taught through a nationalistic lens. For example, the US wants to write its history books in a way that makes the USA look good. EX: When Christopher Columbus came to the USA they shared food, and the native americans taught them out a farm, and they conveniently leave out colonialism and the violence. And the history books focus on how assimilation is a “good thing” and how people want to get along, so they take and borrow from other cultures. That is all a huge oversimplification of these issues and this isn't just a US or western ideal. Which is why I say that history is taught in a very nationalistic lens.

For example, even in East Asia, Japan has been known to take information out of its textbooks, such as war crimes that Japan committed and the sex slavery allegations, the comfort women issue in world war 2. I would like to say that in recent years, they have added the comfort women issue back due to public pressure and international outcry. So that is why, you know, speaking up for issues that you believe are worth it. Protesting those things matter, and they do enact change. Other examples of whitewashing of history is Tiananmen square in China. So it's just a nation's way to keep their citizens loyal. So, of course, they [A Nation’s Governmnet] want to make their nations look good and whitewash or sometimes straight up re-write or omit important historical points to make the nation itself look better. So, yes. History is pretty widely known to be extremely biased based on nation, based on who won the war. And if anything whether that be bias towards class or nationalism, it absolutely exists.

Even though it's important to question your information you're learning in school, and always strive to know the truth, it's not constructive to come at the system of teaching of pedagogy and be like “oh, you have an agenda, you're teaching me things because you want to control me.” Just, it's really important to just try and hear things out as they are, and although it's fine to question the system, to do that constructively is a very very good skill.

17:40 So Bo goes on and continues to make the song heavier and heavier by Socko saying “Do you know the world is built with blood? And genocide? And exploitation!?” For sure. It can be difficult to look at the world and its injustices and think there's so much suffering and get legitimately depressed. A lot of scholars do develop depression and PTSD from the things that they study. But for those of whom who struggle with those feelings, there is statistical significance in cooperation being chosen in global conflict over violence. And there could be a lot of reasons for that! People who study nuclear proliferation say it's because the world is afraid of “imminent destruction.” Like,  we have nuclear bombs now. We could literally destroy the world if we wanted to. And it'd be too easy. So restraint is shown more in this day and age because of that capability of imminent destruction.

Interestingly enough, people even attribute capitalism to peace because it has caused a global interdependence on the trade of goods, and the manufacturing of goods, and acquiring of raw materials. You don't want this conflict because we're so dependent on getting things we need from each other, so the world is so intertwined economically that it would be in nobody's interest to be violent because it ended up bad for the economy. Even China, who has a history of economic protectionism is intertwined in the global economic system. So, it's a long-winded way to say just as much pain and terror as there is, there is a trend of positivity and interdependence as well.

So I know it's so easy to feel burdened. And it's why I had to take a break in my studies as well. And if you spend each day being the best person that you can be, you can make a difference. Because kindness matters. And I choose to believe that. If you're kind to someone, it spreads out to everyone. So, don't give up! It's okay. I know it sounds really cheap, but I choose to believe that kindness matters. 

20:01 So Socko goes on to reference good old Marx again by saying the global network of capital essentially functions to separate the worker from the means of production. So we got comrade Socko, all right, this line is definitely the one to get the most response from the YouTube community! So first, I originally viewed Bo saying “the global network of capital” to mean the “global division of labor” because capital or money is made. By using labor. For example, before the global division of labor we had Artisans who cultivated their own raw materials to make their own products. But now, the world doesn't work that way anymore. 
Presently, colonial conquests have a significance in today's world economy. If you live in the global north, with those countries being like European countries the US, Canada, like being a part of the global north gives you an inherent advantage. Even if you're not a part of the bourgeoisie. So I did originally say that Bo had a good point, but a weak point by saying “the global network of capital essentially functions to separate the worker from the means of production.” And I reworded his point to say “The global network of capital essentially functions to exploitate the workers from the means of production.” So there was this inclusivity with the world wide market.

The “means of production” are the physical and non-financial inputs used in the production of goods and services with economic value. So, that includes the raw materials, the facilities used to make goods, the machinery, and the tools. So, yes. Through the global division of labor the global north as consumers are very separated from the very laborers and raw materials that their finished goods come from. It that's going to to happen. It's just an outdated remark.

So basically, Socko saying that you know “the global division of labor separates the worker from the means of production” it's not a very strong point, but it's not incorrect. And I stand by that, because I feel like his point ignores the greater worldwide issue the worker being separated by the means of production only scratches the surface. And there's a lot more deeper issues. And workers can be separated from the means of production but does that mean that they can't be valued as equals in a global economy? But the issue is that they are not right now. And this can be because of xenophobia, racism, otherism, classism, and further than economics this is a social issue. And I don't think the way that Socko states his point like “Oh, the workers are separated from the means of production”. Gives justice to where things are due. And it's a selfish way to view the economy, because it is a global economy. And if you're focused on the exploitation of people, you should think further than your own backyard. Because that's not how things are made, things are made on a global scale. Let's be inclusive, let's not forget that the economy is global. Let's not only think about ourselves. This is about how the world works yet Socko is talking about his world, mostly.

24:00 So, it's just something to remember. Inclusivity and thought especially economics because it's so intertwined. So, Socko goes on to say “private properties inherently theft, and neo-liberal fascists are destroying the left.” People LOVE this line on YouTube. In my YouTube video my quote on private property was “private property isn't a thing for most people” but I left out in that statement “because most people only have personal property”. Private property is used to get profit or produce something exclusively, and of course, most people don't have that. Because most people don't own a factory, or a place where they employ people and take some of the money earned from those goods. And I was corrected by people who were passionate and believe that private property is indeed theft. So, I'm going through that viewpoint here. And if you're here from that YouTube video thank you so much for educating me on private property versus personal property!

So, from a Marxist standpoint, whenever the workers don't profit off of the surplus value, for example, you're selling ice cream and you're earning your daily wage, but you don't make any extra money off of that ice cream that you sell. So, Marx is saying that that worker is being exploited and the system is unjust because the owner of that building is getting the surplus value from that worker's work. So I think Socko might be implying that the only way for the workers not to be exploited would be the direct ownership of the means of production and an equal sharing of the surplus value. So landlords to Marx are inherent thieves because they exploitate the people who manufacture the goods with their labor and take that extra profit.So that's the point of view. You don't really have to agree or disagree with that. That's just his standpoint on being a landlord. That you know, just because you own that land and employ people and give them a wage, it is theft because you're taking part of that value that is created by maintaining the store and selling the products and taking it for yourself just because you said that land is yours.

So Marx has a philosophical issue with land ownership. And unless you're a very small business with no workers you definitely exploit your workers and steal their labor in Marx's point of view. So what leftists called the “labor theory of value” is basically that the workers are the ones who add value to the product. So if you're selling ice cream, the workers add value to that ice cream with their labor and that gets stolen by the landlord, or that company that gets profits. So thank you to the people again who like explain that theory to me! And I just really wanted to deep dive into that here in the longer version of the podcast.

27:20 So going on with that statement, as Socko says “private properties inherently theft and neoliberal fascists are destroying the lef”. So, the part of “neoliberal fascists destroying the left” is a doozy. Neoliberalism or what can be called the latest and most extreme stage of predatory capitalism. [It is] widely believed that neo-liberal fascism is equal to predatory capitalism. So neoliberalism's goal is to consolidate power in the hands of the financial elite. Basically, if you have the money to do it, you can do it. Put simply, neoliberalism seeks to liberate the market from any restraints that are imposed by the state, that are imposed by the federal government. So it's unregulated markets to the extreme. So what does that mean? Well neoliberal fascists  can be seen as an oxymoron because both words can be interpreted to mean the same thing. 

It can be argued that neoliberalism is the new fascism. So neoliberalism and fascism are both defined as right-wing populist movements. So those movements are described to bring forth ideas in ultra-nationalism, xenophobia, further the us versus them mentality. So basically, when your entire goal is to make money, to make more money, you're going to leave so many more social issues environmental issues in the wayside. For example, social programs in neoliberal fascism would be cut because those are not profitable In the pursuit of money, that means no more social welfare to help people out in poverty and environmental degradation can become an issue because, you know, you want to make more acid wash jeans who cares if it destroys the ocean. Probably not in our lifetime, our goal is money! 

So, with this explanation of neoliberal fascism, to say neoliberal fascism is destroying the “left” isn't wrong but it's a huge oversimplification because neoliberalism would destroy everything that's not elite. It would destroy everyone and everything that's in the not in the point zero zero zero zero one percent of people who are making these exorbitant amounts of money. And this is more than a left versus right issue, and that's what I did say in the original YouTube video. And some people spoke up about that, saying that it's not an oversimplification and this is from someone in the comments “if you say neoliberalism has eroded support for leftist ideas such as unions that protect workers rights” Sure! Neoliberalism is destroying a leftist ideal, but boiling down issues to using them as a us versus them mentality is so harmful. We need to be specific with our arguments, and think deeper. Though i agree with the overall ideal that neoliberalism can quote unquote “destroy some leftist ideals” let's not make this a left versus right issue. Let's not fight each other because the top one percent of people are making some decisions. Let's think about solving issues as a way to overall improve human life and value all life.

“Neoliberalism is destroying the left” that's that's harmful. Because neoliberalism would destroy all but the zero .0001 percent. Don't make this a left versus right issue. Socko can teach us an important lesson here. Socko is over using jargon. He's using big words to put forth ideas that sound really solid, but in a way it's very non-specific, and doesn't have any really strong meaning. But basically, Socko is echoing a Marxist critique on capitalism and asserting that capitalism is after all exploitative. And I would agree with that. Sure. Capitalism can exploitate people. And it has been proven to do so with colonial conquest. So with Socko using jargon, you need to question yourself when you automatically align yourself to like being anti-neoliberal. I mean, these are big complicated nuanced concepts then you should evaluate your stance based on specific situations, and the facts in those situations. Because you might just be agreeing with buzzwords that you hear, and identifying with labels instead of correctly understanding the concepts behind those labels. So remember, if you hold too tight to your identity and your label, such as being “on the left” it'll hurt you from listening to arguments from people who are on the opposing side. And just because someone doesn't agree with what you agree with now doesn't make them wrong or any less intelligent. So it's important to think deeply. 

And this is why Adventure With Me exists~ To challenge broad thoughts, and to also learn. Like I have from you guys about Marxism ideals. And you know, private property. And to have a conversation. So I mentioned in the video, in the original youtube video, on Bo Burnham's How the World Works is, I do think that Bo chose to use jargon to prove his point. And i'm not critiquing the use of his jargon, but i'm offering an explanation that Socko may be using it defensively to get the upper hand on the privileged Bo Burnham. But I posed a question, is the use of jargon perhaps inhibiting them to have a more productive conversation? I think Bo Burnham himself might have had that in mind. Instead of using jargon to be catchy, I think Bo might be critiquing the use of buzzwords and that they alienate people. So I wanted to bring it up. But hey, who knows. Maybe he was just using those words to be catchy. But that's the fun thing about art, is the interpretation! And I’d love to hear what you guys think about it too.

34:09  So Socko goes on to generalize even more. As Socko does. By saying “every politician every cop on the street protects the interests of the pedophilic corporate elite.” Alright. So, Bo really brings it home that Socko likes to generalize. And this is more nuanced when he mentioned neoliberal fascism destroying the left before, but now he's saying every politician and every cop on the street protects pedophilic interests. Okay. So I mean, obviously not. 

Using generalizations, your statements can be really harmful and lead to more divide, and more misunderstandings. So I really think the larger point that Socko's getting at is that you know, politics, and police force work have really deep underlying issues that lead people to have so much power that they go unchecked. And they are able to do such harmful things, you know? Their power as a cop, as a politician, allows them to make harmful decisions that go unpunished. Yes, of course. I would agree with Socko by saying that. But in generalizing that every cop and you know when you spread that kind of rhetoric people end up believing it. And it's really important to critique that system of police, critique, you know, the politics system, but to be more specific. And although these issues can lead to gut reactions and make someone so angry, and rightfully so, it's really really important to think deeper on these issues and not generalize. Because, you know, these same groups that you're critiquing-- the politicians, and the cops. They're a group of people who are also willing to help you. 

36:16 So Socko goes on to explain situations in which people are exploited by saying quote “genocide the natives say you got to it first.” So, genocide is probably the most violent way to explore the us versus them mentality. Basically, seeing someone as a threat just because they're a different ethnicity than you. So if you're curious in this phenomenon as I mentioned in the youtube video genocide can happen because of colonialism when one country decides “Oh, yeah that country is mine”. And then takes it through violent means. A genocide can also happen within nations such as the Uyghur genocide in China. But genocide does not have to be of native people to be considered genocide. It can be of people of the same nation, with different religions, different ethnic groups. Things to research if you're interested with that would be the Rwandan civil war as well which happened in the 90s. So, yes. Genocide is not only of natives. And it is a very very harmful us versus them mentality. 

So, after Socko drops all of this knowledge. Bo goes on to get irritated at Socko and probably because they're talking about these sensitive topics. And Bo is an outsider on all of these topics  and it can seem hurtful to someone who has to like go through these things every day. And rightfully so, the irritated Socko says “don't burden me with the responsibility of educating you.” And so, although this anger is very understandable. And you know, this irritation that people feel when educating others it's something that I can empathize with too. But it is an example of bad communication, on both Socko and Bo’s characters part. Bo is defensive you know, and Socko is being accusatory. And you're not going to be able to have a genuine conversation if that's how you're going to speak to each other. 

38:17 And then Socko goes on getting more agitated saying “why does every white person have to see socio-political conflict through the myopic lens of their own self-actualization”. So basically, Socko is critiquing Bo by saying “Oh, you're only asking about all of these social issues, all of these political issues, because as a white person you just want to be quote unquote “woke” on these conflicts, and you're not working to make the world a better place”. 

So when Socko says myopic lens, he's basically calling Bo narrow minded. And self-actualization is the journey that every human being goes through, which is seen through Maslow's hierarchy of needs. So again, basically Socko is saying “why do white people have to make everything about themselves?” Again, it's a generalization on white people. Socko likes to generalize. We don't believe every single white person makes everything about themselves, but Socko is very very frustrated he says “why are you sitting here having your existential crisis pity party where there's real people suffering out there today!”. 

Socko is upset with Bo, because Bo has the privilege to see horrible things and think “Oh gosh! Well, that makes me want to be a better person.” And that's infuriating, that's even infuriating to me, because in the end, people like Bo can make those issues about themselves. I told a story in my YouTube video about my diversity training that I had in my office and one of the ladies was all like “Oh, wow talking about all of these things is so so much for me i can't do this”. And that's something that's really really insulting. And can be frustrating in the face of someone who has to struggle every day. And be seen you know not as a person but through their blackness, through their foreignness, be struggled to be taken seriously because of their accent, be afraid of the police because of where they live in the color of their skin in the united states. And that's just something that cannot truly be empathized if you are in a position of power as a white person.

There are just some things that whiteness privileges you into not having the same experiences of people as of color, and that's just a reality. And then to be on the receiving end of hearing like “Oh, i'm so exhausted because of the realities that I don't have to face”, is something that's really insulting. So how could this interaction have been improved? So. I'd say that Socko's jargon is absolutely stopping Bo and Socko from having a more productive conversation. Along with Socko's generalizations, as you can see, this whole video was about boiling down the concepts of jargon that Socko was using. And in a lot of ways his statements were almost nonsensical and they could mean almost anything. So Socko can be less pretentious, and Bo definitely a hundred percent needs to be less defensive and realize his privilege, and not shut down Socko every time he's reminded of it. Like bo needs to be okay with being checked. 

It's great that Bo is asking questions, but see what happens in this next line Bo is taking advantage of his position of power and really shuts down the situation with Socko by feeling threatened by him and Bo disallows Socko from talking anymore. So even though Socko was able to say everything that he wanted, and he wasn't necessarily silenced while he was saying what he wanted to say and he didn't feel afraid about what he had to say, but after the fact he was beat down for asserting that Bo takes some personal responsibility. We see in the end, that Bo is like ah okay stay in your lane we can look at reality sure but when I am uncomfortable the conversation ends. 

And that is something that's really complicated in today's like political atmosphere. Because sure, people have the right to say what they want to say. And maybe they're not afraid to say it. But you know, they get shut down. They get attacked after saying these realities and saying that people need to take personal responsibility for the things that they say and do. And in the end, Bo has all of the power in this conversation. And we don't get anything more because well… maybe after all that is how the world works. 

So, we can see that Bo, is like it's an example of virtue signaling. When you put forth a facade of caring about an issue when you're just doing it to make yourself look good. But what's interesting is that both Bo and Socko can be seen to be doing the same thing. Bo can be virtue signaling by just asking you know out of curiosity and wanting to seem woke and wanting to seem, you know, like he cares about Socko's experience. And then Socko can be seen as virtue signaling because he's putting forth all of these over generalizations, attacking Bo on the basis of his whiteness, and saying generalizations of both the economy and socio-political conflict that just concern himself instead of the greater global economy and the greater global exploitation that is happening.

So we can see that Socko is being selfish as well and both of them can be improved. So I think one thing that I really struggled with even in this rewriting of this script, to try and talk about the conversations that we had in the YouTube comments like, I think there's still a misunderstanding and how there can be like many things that are real and going on in the same time. For example, like things can be going on in your own backyard where the biggest thing that you have to worry about is being you know an employee who's exploited labor through like a landlord who steals some of your profits that you make by you know selling their goods. And then think that the Marxist critique kind of ends there--it ends at your experience. But what I wanted to get through, with this a deeper dive, was to challenge you to see things that are past your own experience. To see the global consequence of you know this colonization, exploitating workers, not only within your own natio,n but what happens you know before the goods get to your door, you know, before you buy them. There's so much more exploitation that goes on that not only you face, that so many people face. 

And I, you know, have so much fun doing this! And it's it's really important to like not pick a side. Especially when you're like, critiquing art. And they're both like, characters, you know. Like, Bo’s character and Socko's character. There's not a good guy and a bad guy. It's just both characters trying to do their best. Sometimes there is no villain, and there is no hero. And everyone is trying to do their best, but both are still making mistakes. And we don't have to be on anyone's one side. truly. We can take the good from both parts and we can take the bad from both parts. 

Bo is asking questions and wanting to be a better person, that's great! But he's also being selfish, and taking advantage of his power. Shutting down the conversation with Socko. And Socko is trying to share his information in his personal experience and he's very educated on things that are happening in the world, but he is also being selfish, not considering the greater global implications of exploitation. And he's also using generalizations, that are very very harmful to groups of people that also exist to spread positivity in the world for example making generalizations on law enforcement and making generalizations on white people. Even though it may be true that whiteness gives inherent privilege to those who are white, you should not over generalize them saying because of your whiteness you have an inherent complex of superiority. Which is untrue. Although there is inherent privilege with whiteness, there is not an inherent personality trait given to a white person. So I implore us all to take some deeper adventures. And I can't wait to hear the different conversations that we'll be having on this too! Because I also post my podcast, although they're available on spotify, in every podcast platform, they are also uploaded to youtube! So feel free to make a comment on the HewwoReese YouTube or visit my website hewworeese.com h-e-w-w-o-r-e-e-s-e-com to view podcasts, blogs, vlogs, deals, and more. And I will see you guys next, time bye <3