Responding to Pushback on the Shai Linne Video

All right, so I asked on Twitter if y 'all wanted me to make this video, and I'm going to.

I was very pleasantly surprised by the comments that I got on YouTube.

You know, a lot of people don't like YouTube comments. A lot of people have YouTube comments turned off on their channel, and what

I've heard is that, you know, YouTube comments are where brain cells go to die, and they're just vitriolic and toxic and all this kind of stuff.

And I gotta say, with this channel, I really don't get a lot of that. You guys are awesome. Thank you so much, if you're new here, for subscribing.

If this video is helpful to you, please share it, but continue to comment, because that kind of engagement, I'm not able to respond as much as I'd like, because I've got a job that I have to do.

I don't make a living on YouTube, you know. But you guys are always insightful. There's just no question about it.

You always cause me to think. I've learned a lot from the YouTube comments on my channel, so I think that we are the exception to the rule, guys.

You guys do a great job. And in this one, I got some pushback that I thought was pretty helpful, and people actually made some pretty good points.

And so I'd like to respond to some of those good points, and also maybe explain myself a little further, so you can better understand where I'm coming from here.

But I think the common theme of every comment, whether they're supportive of what I said on the video, or they're not, is that a lot of people really like Shy Lan.

And I understand, because I do as well. I said that in the video. I think he's a good guy. I've got affections towards Shy Lan, and all of that kind of stuff.

The purpose of that video was not to throw shade Shy Lan's away, but it was to push back on some of the stuff he said, which

I think is totally fine. But anyway, let's dive right into some of these comments. I'm not gonna read them all.

I'm gonna focus on the ones that were critical of what I said, mostly, because that's what the video is about.

But I'm grateful for all the comments, even the ones that were supportive. Thank you. Okay. The first comment that I'll talk about was by a guy named

Joseph. Here's what he says. He says, Hey AD, I appreciate what I think you're trying to do. However, I think you're unequally applying assumptions or nuance with Shy Lan and the police officer, women walking down the street, and Shy Lan's friends.

With the officer, you say, I don't know, with regard to his callousness. And you are right. No one really knows.

A woman's fears are the actions of Shy Lan's friends. But with Shy Lan, you assume that Shy Lan is grouping thoughtful responses and questions with internet trolls and keyboard vigilantes.

Given the quality of the content Shy Lan has put out in the past, I don't think he is grouping these two groups together. You assume he's projecting his feelings to his white friends.

You assume that he's assigning motives. You also assume that he is saying fellowship must be broken. Again, an inference.

If you want to be consistent, give the same space for nuance with Shy Lan as you give space for nuance with police officers, women, and Shy's friends.

Joseph, this is the first part of your criticism, and I think you've made a very good point. I think it's very possible that you know, what

I've done with Shy Lan regarding his whole comment about keyboard vigilantes and internet trolls might be inappropriate.

And let me explain myself a little bit about that. Because the reality is that Shy Lan didn't just kind of pop this article out in the middle of nowhere with no context or things like that.

It was released on the Gospel Coalition. And that's important to understand why

I responded the way I did. I'm not saying that it was fair, but the reason I figured he was kind of conflating thoughtful responses with internet trolling and keyboard vigilantes is because Gospel Coalition is notorious for doing exactly that.

I've seen it so many times at this point that it's just not even worth considering if they do this or not.

They do it. The Gospel Coalition loves to say that any criticism, no matter how tame, is sniping, is internet trolling, is social media sharking, stuff like that.

That's what they do. That's one of the ways that they rebut criticism. But that being said, Shy Lan is not a official

Gospel Coalition guy. He's promoted by the Gospel Coalition a lot, but he's not a Gospel Coalition guy.

And so you are right. I should not have put the baggage that Gospel Coalition brings to the table on Shy Lan just because the article was put out by the

Gospel Coalition. So that's very fair. Then the rest of your comment, though, I think is a little bit strange because you say that I assume that he's projecting his feelings on to whites.

I assume that he's assigning motives. I assume that he's saying fellowship should be broken and stuff like that.

And some of that is a misquote. I didn't say he said fellowship should be broken, but the reality is that that's what the article does.

He assumes that people were feeling a certain way towards him. He says that his friends, you know, he wonders if they're just wanting to check off black on their black friend checklist and stuff like that.

He said that. I'm not assuming that. I'm reading his words. He said that he feels like he can't have real fellowship once he starts talking about race.

That's something that Shy Lan said. I didn't say that. So it's not an assumption. It's just reading the article for what it was.

So I I agree with you that maybe I was, you know, a little bit unfair to try to put something that I think is really a criticism of gospel coalition on to Shy Lan.

But at the end of the day, I think some of your points about me assuming certain things about projecting feelings. I don't really think that's appropriate.

I think he's most certainly definitely doing that, because if he wasn't doing that, he would have given us the rest of the details like the women that moved to the other side of the street.

He was projecting on them that they were racist towards him. But if if he had more data, like they said, hey, get out of my way, you black guy, like something like that, then he probably would have told us that in this article.

But he didn't. So, you know, I don't think it's unfair to say he's assuming something. He clearly is.

All right. Let's continue with his comment. He says, put another way. You are quick to assume what

Shy Lan is and is not assuming. I think you're right in one instance. I think you're wrong in most of your instances.

He goes on. He says, I love that you're trying to be fair minded and nuanced, but it could be that your sensitivity to the social justice movement is leading a place of one sided generalizations.

And this is a good point, Joseph. And what he's saying basically is, if I'm not mistaken, is that I'm so involved in this social justice movement that I'm quick to sort of have a hair trigger and be reactionary, like automatically, like flying off the handle and maybe in an inappropriate way, seeing a social justice warrior where there isn't one.

That is a very fair point of warning for me, Joseph. I think that that's very fair.

Some people have warned me about this in the past. You don't want to be so reactionary that you kind of fall into the other ditch, so to speak.

And Joseph, you should know that I think about this almost every single day. Definitely, I think about it every time

I do a video. And I'm not saying that I've done it perfectly, but it's on my mind all the time. So I appreciate the advice.

I appreciate the warning. It's a very good warning. I don't necessarily think that I've done that here with Shailen, but I appreciate it.

I definitely do consider that very good criticism. OK, second point that he makes, this is another interesting point.

Joseph says, secondly, I think you're overly bifurcating thinking between heart and mind. I would suggest that it is quite impossible to entirely separate the two.

And in fact, some thoughts without heart response are themselves incomplete. And this is a good point.

He's right. It is impossible to completely separate emotions from rationality because we are emotional beings.

You know, I'm not saying that you should suppress your emotions and be like Spock, where it's just like, well, that's illogical, sir.

You know, like or a robot or something like that. I'm not saying that. But what I am saying, though, is when the emotions are flowing, when they're raging, you know how they do sometimes when you just kind of feel all the feels kind of thing.

And that's the phrase that the cool kids are saying these days, I think. That that's a very important warning sign to be careful that you can't just let your emotions take over.

The Bible has all kinds of warnings about not letting your emotions take over and things like that.

Who can who can trust your heart? Your heart is desperately wicked and all of these things. And so and so I'm not saying that there's a there's a clear distinction.

Like it's you just need to separate rationality from emotions. But what you do need to do is be super careful when the emotions are flowing to make sure you're being rational.

And this article is very, very intended to to to elicit an emotional response.

I've heard some people say that this is supposed to get you to have affections towards Shaolin and black people in general.

And that's definitely true. This is a very emotional article. You can feel the emotions as you read it. I felt the emotions as I read it.

But we cannot just take those emotions and say, OK, and therefore I'm going to do all these things because I know they're true, because my emotions just tell me that they're true.

No, that's why we need to be super careful. That's why we need to bring the data into this. That's why we need to see what reality actually is.

That's what that's what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that there's a way to clearly distinct distinguish between the two, like a clear line, like no emotions whatsoever.

I'm not saying that, but we can't think with our emotions exclusively. We can't let our emotions take over that kind of thing.

OK, lastly, his point says this. The point of the article is not to, quote unquote, get you to go with him in taking this stance and all of this.

The point of this article is to share his heart and to be heard. You say you affirm that he has these feelings, but as soon as the feelings are written down on paper, you say,

I can't go with you. What sort of message does that send? And with all due respect, Joseph, this is not the point of the article.

I agree that he wants to be heard and he wants you to hear his heart. But you try to seem to indicate that that's the only point.

And that's not the only point, because this is not like it's not like Shailen just again, like he did.

He didn't just have one of those online journals where he was just always stream of consciousness, just kind of always putting his heart out there.

That's all he does all the time. No, no, this is in this particular context, at this particular time, in this particular country, he's writing this article to elicit a response.

He wants to, he wants to get you to do something. He wants to drive you to action. He wants to, you see what

I'm saying? So it's not just like he wants to pour his heart out. He does want to pour his heart out, but it's intended to make you do something.

He wants you to go with him with where he wants to go. That is the point of the article.

And so you say, what sort of message does it send for me to say I affirm his feelings, but I can't go with you?

I hope the message is that Shailen, I love you. I love you as a brother, but God requires me to love

Derek Chauvin as well. And so when you say something about Derek Chauvin, as emotional as it makes you, as much as I affirm your sadness and your weeping and your emotions and all of that, as much as I affirm that,

I still need to love Derek Chauvin according to God's standards. And so we need to establish the facts of the matter.

And furthermore, I love the people that are in the police departments around the country. And I love the people that make the laws in the country and all that kind of stuff.

And so we need to be fair with them as well. And so that's why when I say I affirm your emotions, but I can't go with you to the action that you want to drive me towards,

I hope the message that Shailen hears is that I want to love my neighbor as myself, you for sure, but also my other neighbors,

Derek Chauvin as one of them. And so I can't go with you when you say he murdered this guy due to asphyxiation, if that's not the case.

You understand what I'm saying? So we want, I hope that's the message that's sent. I'm not sure that's the message that'll be received, but that's the message that I'm intending to send,

Joseph. He goes on, he says, you can say I've heard you and I disagree, but in this video, you go way beyond that.

By saying things like, quote, I can't go with you, you are the one in fact breaking fellowship. Nothing in Shai's article says that fellowship cannot be had with someone who disagrees.

I hope you read the comments. I would've preferred to have sent this in a message, but I don't know how to do that through YouTube. Well, thank you for your message,

Joseph. I disagree with that last comment completely. I'm not the one breaking fellowship because what I'm saying is, when

I say I can't go with you doesn't mean I can't be your brother. What it does mean is though, I'm not gonna be driven to the action that you want me to go with.

I'm not gonna say things about people that I don't know are true. I'm not gonna say that Derek Chauvin didn't choke the life out of this guy and it was a murder if I don't know that that's true.

But that's where I'm not going with you. You see what I'm saying? So I'm not breaking fellowship. I don't know why you would interpret that as breaking fellowship.

And you say nothing in Shai's article says that fellowship cannot be had. Technically true, but he says like, he feels like it can't be had.

That's on him, that's not on me. And so I don't understand where this is coming from, this last comment here,

I can't go with you doesn't mean like you're not a Christian. What it does mean though, is that I'm not gonna do the things that you say

I should do just because I have affections for you, just because you tell me about all your emotions. That's not how it works.

And that's not how it should work for any Christian. But Joseph, thank you for your comment. I think you made some good points.

Let's continue. All right, this one is not a criticism, but it's a very interesting comment that I wanted to mention.

This is by a guy who calls himself locks are masculine objects, well, he always has interesting comments.

So I would recommend you check him out on my YouTube comment section. Here's what he has to say. By the way, thanks for watching and thanks for your comments, they're always very interesting.

He says Derek Chauvin's name is interesting. Chauvin, chauvinist, white male chauvinist.

Derek means people ruler. So the chauvinistic people ruler killed the black man and now the left wants to kill off, wants to throw off and kill, deconstruct patriots and rulers hiding in plain sight.

He says other interesting name studies include Bernie Madoff, Ellen DeGeneres, Anthony Weiner, Bruce Jenner.

I honestly don't know what's behind things like this, but it's more than a coincidence. Are they letting us see behind the curtain or is it

God's warning system? And I've often thought about this as well. This is a great comment because the names are just fantastic here.

There's so many of these. Off the top of my head, I could list a bunch. Let me just think. So there's Chicago's mayor,

Mayor Lightfoot. There was a, I think a Philadelphia police chief or sheriff or whatever they call them.

And she was the one that during the coronavirus said that they weren't gonna respond to certain crimes anymore. Her name was police chief outlaw.

Outlaw was doing this. There's that presidential candidate, Pete Bootygeek.

There's all kinds of names like this that are just super descriptive. What about that Senator, Jeff Flake?

Remember he flaked on the Republicans. Ben's Jeff Flake. This happens all the time. There's that woman, that lesbian woman.

Isn't her last name like Sinema or something like that? It's just crazy. So the question is, is this like a, are they telling us something or is this

God's warning system? And I don't know what the answer is, but if it's God's warning system, I will take the name he gave me.

Adam Robles. Robles in Spanish means oak tree. All right. All right, J2 says this.

He says, I disagree with the thrust of this video, brother. I think Shai's article illustrates fairly common temptations that aren't totally unreasonable.

For example, scared to get pulled over for driving while black, scared neighbors that are gonna think you're stealing for grabbing a borrowed item off a porch.

And because those temptations and irritants are so common, and again, not altogether unreasonable, the article's useful to help us bear one another's burdens.

Well, J, if you found it useful to help you bear his burdens, you didn't know that kind of stuff before, then great.

I'm glad that you found it useful. And thanks for explaining why you find it useful. People don't usually do that. People just say, oh, that was so helpful, but you don't really know what they're talking about.

But in your case, you explained why, then that's great. If you found it useful for that, that's great. What I do want to quibble with, though, is that you're saying that Shai kind of presents this as a temptation.

When he says that he's scared to get pulled over, that's a temptation that he needs to kind of mortify, that it's like a sin that needs to mortify, put a stop to, that he feels that way.

And I don't think that's how he presented it at all. In fact, I think the way he presented it was not only is this how

I feel, but it's totally justified to feel this way, and everyone feels this way, and this is just the black experience.

I think that's really more how it was presented. It wasn't presented as something to mortify. It was presented as something like, you feel bad for me for this?

So I don't agree with how you've characterized the article, but the thing is, and this is actually, one of my other commenters replied to this, and I think this is an interesting reply.

She says this, I'm a white woman, and I think twice about taking something off a friend's porch.

It wasn't that way when I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, even the 80s, but now it's different. And I agree,

I wouldn't want to put myself in that situation. Like if a buddy said, hey, go to my backyard, borrow the shovel, this and that, and I'm not gonna be there for a few days, but just do it, it's no problem,

I wouldn't do it. Because I think that puts me in a compromising situation. It's not because I think cops are racist or people are racist, but it's because I don't want to deal with police officers.

You know what I mean? I don't find it pleasant to deal with police officers. Nothing against you guys. I know many police officers that are very nice.

But the thing is, you understand that when most people are driving down the street, they're going the speed limit, and everything's fine.

All of a sudden, a cop pulls up behind them, or they see a cop on the side of the road. That's not usually a comforting feeling.

That's usually a, you know, like your adrenaline starts pumping. It's like, what am I doing wrong? What am I doing wrong? I'm gonna get pulled over. Nobody really wants to deal with the police officers, and that's the point.

So it's like, this is, if Shy doesn't want to deal with police officers because he thinks they're racist,

I think that that's a problem for Shy, but I don't think he presented it as if that's a temptation for him.

I think he presented it more of, this is just a black experience. This is what it's like to be black in America. And the newsflash is that this is what it's like to be in America.

Like, again, I don't feel comfortable when I see a cop behind me in the street, even if I'm doing nothing. You know what

I mean? Like, I feel worried. I start sweating. Not because I think they're racist, because I don't want to get pulled over for speeding.

We've got way too many laws in this country. You know what I mean? That's why I feel, like, weird. But, so,

I see your point. If you found it helpful, I don't want to take that away from you, Jay, but I didn't find it helpful, and I don't think that you characterized the article the right way here.

All right, this comment is a bit of a mixed bag. There's some interesting things here, but there's some, we'll see which parts that I respond.

Maybe I'll just do the whole thing. The commenter says this. She says, I had read

Shilin's article shared on Facebook, and I was looking up to him, looking him up, and came across this video. Thanks for watching.

I tried to listen to it carefully. After reading more of how black Christians view current events and understanding it better,

I'm also trying to understand your perspective better. Well, good for you, Valerie. This is exactly what you should do.

You should try to understand people's perspectives, and so I appreciate the pushback and the opportunity to clarify things that maybe weren't clear in the first place.

She says this. Number one. Do you feel it is okay to call out a brother's sin in a public forum without talking to him privately first?

I would say that it isn't biblical, even if his letter is in a public forum. The answer is yes.

This is a question I've been asked many times. I know you're new, so you don't know this, but yeah, I absolutely think that that's totally okay.

We have examples of Jesus doing this. We have examples of Paul doing this. We have examples of the apostles doing this.

We have examples of many, many people doing this. Because Jesus did it, it can't be a sin. You might not like the wisdom of it.

You might think it's better to go to him privately first. I don't agree. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

In this case, I didn't feel like it was necessary. I didn't think it would help, so I chose not to, but we're just gonna disagree on that, and that's totally fine.

Number two. She says, I'm not sure he would deny that he's projecting the facts onto people, as you mentioned.

Neither am I. I think he's a reasonable guy. I think he would admit that. She goes on. She says, I think the point of the article is that he is projecting those facts because of his feelings, but did you ask him this before slandering him in his video?

That's a weird one, Valerie, to be honest, because if it's slander, then it isn't true, but you seem to be admitting that it is true, that he is projecting these feelings onto white people, and then you say, if I said that without asking about him, then that's slander.

It can't, that doesn't make any sense. If you're agreeing that he's doing that, then it's not slander.

I think that you mean, I think this is kind of referring to the fact that I did this publicly first, but just because you criticize someone publicly, that's not slander.

It has to be a lie. It has to be misrepresenting him or something like that. Anyway, let's continue. She says, maybe he believes his projections are facts.

I'm sure he does. That's the point, though. They're not. They're just his feelings. She goes on, in which, you could have called him to repent in private.

This is really just a, number one and two are really just the same thing. I don't think it's necessary. Anyway, continue.

Oh, by the way, Valerie, if you want to know more about why I don't think it's necessary, there's a video I did called Naming Names or something like that.

Anyway, she says, three, in the lamenting video, which I watched separately, you said that we should not lament or rejoice when it requires us to agree with someone else's idolatry.

I completely agree with that. However, I think you took that a step further. What idolatry are you accusing

Shia of here? You did not mention what it was. You said you didn't agree with his ideology. Is Shia asking you to weep because of his ideology, even?

I don't think so, as I read the entire context of the piece. He's asking us to weep because he is sad and also because of his experiences has made him feel less than human.

No, not facts, just experiences in the world. Why couldn't we weep with a brother for that? Why couldn't we weep at a minimum because his child wished to change the color of his skin?

But you dismissed the lamenting entirely. What does that say about you? This is kind of a, this is inappropriate,

Valerie. You can't take one video and then combine it with another video, even if you watched both of them back -to -back because I didn't record them back -to -back necessarily.

I didn't have them in mind at the same time. So you can't really just do that. I didn't say that lamenting is wrong entirely, so I don't know why you would say that.

In fact, in the video that you're commenting on here, I said that that whole thing about the child that wished to change the color of his skin, that was extremely sad.

I said that wasn't projection. That's extremely sad. And of course, if you wanna lament with him for that, then you should lament.

My lamenting video was about, I'm not gonna lament a lie. So if Shy Lynn is lamenting because blacks are getting killed by police officers at higher rates than any other race in history, well,

I'm not gonna lament with Shy about that because it isn't true. You understand what I'm saying? I'm gonna try to correct Shy on that.

He's actually slandering people when he says something like that. When he says, cops are racist, they're always racist, they have been racist for years.

Like, I'm not gonna lament with Shy about that because that's not true. You know what I mean? So like, the stuff that's true, and I can lament his sadness, but not if it's over a lie.

So I'm not gonna really respond more to that because you're kinda trying to combine the two videos and make something of them that they're not.

And plus, there's just some inaccuracies there when I say about lamenting is

I reject it completely. I don't do that. So you might be a little confused. I'm not sure why you would say that.

Number four, she says, is it possible that systemic racism exists? And if it exists, would that mean that there isn't, that would mean that there isn't equality of opportunity?

Is deciding that you'd like to love your neighbor by political activism that promotes equality or of opportunity anti -biblical?

If no, then you have possibly slandered a brother by saying he believes a political ideology that isn't biblical. So is it possible that systemic racism exists?

Yes. Is it anti -biblical if you wanna love your neighbor by political activism that promotes equality of opportunity?

No, but that has nothing to do with this video. If I say no to that, why does it mean I've slandered a brother by believing he has a political ideology?

I didn't say that. That has nothing to do with any of this. I'm not sure where this comes from. Anyway, was

Shai saying that because people around him didn't understand his view of racism that he couldn't have fellowship with them?

Maybe I'm misquoting you, but I believe that's what you said. If that's what you meant, again, I think you have taken his words out of context.

The emphasis in that paragraph is that he feels people were questioning whether or not he had true fellowship with them, not the other way around.

I think you're mistaken about that. He says that he feels like he can't have true fellowship with people when he starts talking about race because he thinks that they're calling him a liberal, a social justice warrior, stuff like that.

And the point is like, that's all what he's saying. He's presenting that as how he said it.

So it's not the way you've said it here. But then later in the article, he starts talking about very social justice warrior -y type things.

And so it's like, well, no, it's not that you're talking about race that's the problem. It's that you're saying social justice warrior woke things, that's the problem.

And they're not saying that he can't have fellowship with them. You know what I mean? That's what you're feeling.

So you are responsible for the way you feel. Your friends aren't responsible for the way you feel.

I would imagine that if his friends had said, Shai, I can't have fellowship with you because you care about race.

If they would have said that, Shai would have put that in the article because that would have been red meat for gospel coalition.

I can only assume since he didn't put that in the article that they did not say that. So all of this is from Shai's perspective.

So I think, Valerie, that you're mistaken there. Her last, again, this could have been cleared up in a private conversation.

This is the theme of her comment. I just disagree that a private conversation is required. I would welcome a private conversation, but that's all

I'm gonna say about that. She says, with all of the above, this video makes me very uncomfortable, even as I agree with some of the points being raised.

Well, I'm glad that you watched it. I'm glad for the comment. Thanks for pushing back on the things that you felt like were inappropriate.

And that's that. All right. Let's continue. Okay. Oh, there's one thing here.

This is a kind of a, I'm not gonna respond to all of this. I'm gonna read it all so you have the context of this.

It's a very antagonistic comment, but he does make a good point that I wanna address. So here's what Emmett Tyler has to say.

He says, where did he say you had to agree with him or you're being against black brothers? I don't know what he's talking about there.

He says, cops and police departments have admitted to needing reform and more training on interactions with minorities. Okay. I have heard too many stories from black people, never whites, about being mistreated and harassed by police, stores, and Christians.

Well, Emmett, if you haven't heard any of stories from whites about that, then you have now because I've gotten probably five or 10 comments on this exact video of white people talking about experiences like that.

He says, does someone have to say they're racist to be racist? No. What does your standard require?

You act as if this country's past has no effect on the present. No, I don't. Are blacks and whites delusional and racism is just in our heads?

This is the part I wanted to comment on because it's like, am I saying that blacks are delusional because they say racism exists?

But Emmett, in this video, I said that I've experienced racism. So if I'm thinking that people are delusional that say that there's racism out there, then

I would be saying that I'm delusional, which clearly I don't think I'm delusional. That doesn't mean

I'm not delusional, by the way. I just don't think I am. Anyway, so that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is when

Shilin says, all these racist things happened to me, I believe all of them. But then when he puts forward a narrative that says, and this is the fact, this is our country is like this, people are like this, this is the black experience because that's what people are using this article to mean.

I'm saying that that's not delusional really, but it is irrational. Like if I have an experience with a white guy, which

I've had before, where I was scared of him and it turns out he was an attempted murderer, that wouldn't be delusional because that's an experience

I really had. But then if I said, and this is just who white people are, they're just violent, they just don't care, they're beasts, they're animals, that would be irrational for me to make that jump.

That jump needs to be proven. You can't just assume it, which I think a lot of people with this article are doing.

They're saying, oh, see, this is the black experience. And I'm like, no, it's not. This is Shailen's experience. This is not the black experience.

You have to actually prove this stuff. We need to bring the data. And when the data doesn't match up with Shailen's narrative that he's putting forward, then we have to be sorry that Shailen experienced this, but realize that the country doesn't necessarily have a problem with the things that Shailen's experienced.

We need to treat people not only as individuals, but also we need to make sure that we understand the difference between something that does happen and something that happens rampantly and systemically, and it's a major issue.

That's the thing. So it's not that it's delusional, Emmett. I'm not saying that you're delusional if you've experienced racism.

What I am saying, though, is when you take that experience and then apply it to everybody else, that's irrational.

It's inappropriate. That's not becoming of a Christian. A Christian can't do that. So that's what

I'm saying. That's what I'm saying. Let's finish the comment just to see the kind of guy that Emmett is.

He says, the fact that we still have white churches and black churches, and I don't even have to explain what those terms mean, shows that the church isn't handling this thing right.

But you actually do have to explain what that means. I've asked someone to explain what that means many times, and no one's ever done it.

So there you go. He says, I'm sure your white church accepts and appreciates your message.

I guess racism ended in the 60s and blacks are delusional. I don't know why you're saying that. I'm not saying that, but that's pretty racist, dude.

And because paying blacks less than whites for the same job or the same experience is acceptable, then go ahead and treat us like second class citizens too.

I guess treating blacks as less than whites is acceptable. Come on, man, wake up. So this is an example with the exception of the part about the delusional thing.

I thought that was interesting. This is an example of more of the more obstinate response. So Emmett Till, step up your game, brother.

Step up your game. But as I said, a lot of people, when they commented here, they show that they really love

Shailene. I like Shailene. I've got affections towards Shailene. I mentioned my kids love his music, all that stuff.

And he seems like a cool guy. But here's the point, because a number of times people have put forward the idea that this article was just intended to show you his heart, to show you his feelings.

And while I agree that that was part of the intention of this article, that wasn't the main thrust.

Because again, it's not like we have like an online blog where it's just stream of consciousness from Shailene all the time.

And we would expect that he would just bear his heart out on everything and anything. And this is just his bearing his heart about blackness in America.

No, this was timed. This article was timed at a certain time in the middle of a movement, in the middle of all kinds of upheaval in the country.

And it was intended to drive you to action. And how you know that, this is not just me picking this out of midair and saying, nah.

How you know that is because he starts off the article saying that he was gutted by watching

Derek Chauvin murder and squeeze the life out of George Floyd.

So in his mind, that's his starting point. He doesn't prove it. He just, it's a very cut and dry, it's a murder.

And now he's gonna give you a bunch of emotions so that you feel super sad and you wanna weep with him.

And the whole idea is to drive you to action about Derek Chauvin. And the reality is that it's not as simple as everybody's making it seem.

It's not an open and shut case. It's just not. And so I know that this article was intended to drive action.

It's not just about here's my feelings. It's here's my feelings in the context of Derek Chauvin murdering this guy.

And now we need action. We need you to do X, Y, and Z. This is all going somewhere.

This is not, the way that people have put this is where it's just like, he just wants you to know his feelings. No, he's trying to drive you to action.

And he's trying to make it so that it's impossible for you to be rational about this because look at this guy, he's weeping.

When someone sees someone weeping, they just wanna put them out. They wanna stop the weeping. They want you to feel better.

But the thing is, we need to think about these things. This is a comment that I'll read. This is not pushback, but this is by a guy who seems super level -headed.

This is exactly what we need right now. This is exactly what we need right now. Let me read this comment.

Zero Spacer says this. George Floyd was high on drugs. Clerks say he gave an apparently forged dollar bill and said he was acting drunk.

He said he couldn't breathe while he was standing. I think the knee on the side and the back of the neck is a common technique for officers and I don't see how it could obstruct breathing, especially with someone with a build like George Floyd.

Floyd seems to have been reacting to fentanyl in his system and the stress of the arrest put him over the edge.

Officers should be trained to recognize these states, listen to the health complaints of the suspect, and opiate blockers should be carried by all officers.

If he were trying to kill Floyd, why would he do this with cameras rolling and onlookers yelling at him?

Though completely ignoring Floyd's complaints does appear to be criminal. The cops seem to think if he was talking, then he could breathe and he couldn't be dying.

That was my first reaction. If you can say I can't breathe, then you are breathing. But drugs do weird things.

Remember, I'm sorry, his system was shutting down, not from obstruction, but his brain by not telling his lungs to function, which is something that happens with fentanyl.

Remember, he had refused to get in the car because of quote unquote claustrophobia and had complained then about not being able to breathe with no knee on his neck.

The prosecution claims this. Lying prone may have just made his body unable to resist the drug reaction he was having.

Saying that it was racism is hard to prove. Zero Spacer, I'm so grateful for this comment because this is how we need to be thinking about this.

When somebody says it wasn't necessarily a murder and it wasn't necessarily a killing, that's not the same thing, racism, sorry, that's not the same thing as saying that Derek Chauvin was innocent as the driven snow because this guy's saying he probably should still be responsible in some way because he was negligent.

He didn't listen to his complaints and he should have understood that someone on fentanyl or someone on some kind of drugs, they could be at risk with a hold like this.

They need to call the doctor when someone's on fentanyl. And that's true. When someone's on fentanyl, you should probably call a paramedic because that drug, even if you've taken it 100 times and nothing's happened, it can kill you like that.

It can kill you the first time you take it. Drugs are bad news, man. But the thing is, when the emotions start flowing, when

Shailen wants to get you to feel so horrible about his feelings,

I'm not saying deny those feelings. What I am saying, though, is that we need to think these things through.

Is this comment from Zero Spacer 100 % accurate? I don't know, but we need to think these things through.

We need to make room for this narrative of the drug killing him. Maybe the proximate cause was being under a stressful arrest, but it wasn't a murder.

Like we need to have the difference here. So one of my commenters here said that we need to be careful,

AD. He says, I love your show, but the medical examiner for the county ruled his death a homicide. Yes, we have to wait for judgment, but we have to be clear on that.

And the answer, Steven, is yes, a homicide. But that's very different than saying it was a murder. That's very different than saying it was intentional.

That's very different than all of that. It could be a voluntary, an involuntary homicide. It could be a negligent homicide.

It could be something like that. Or it could be not a homicide at all. Or not a unjustified homicide at all.

We have to go through the facts here. You know what I mean? It looks revolting. It looks horrible.

I agree with all of that stuff, and I want to affirm anyone's feeling who felt horrified by watching that.

But at the moment when the hormones are raging, you know, the feelings are raging, that's the time when you need to be rational.

Anyone who's had a friend that's had a bad girlfriend or a bad boyfriend knows this. Like when your buddy has a bad girlfriend, she's just like a horrible human being, horrible.

He loves her. He's feeling all the feelings. His hormones are raging. He can't see it, but you can see it because even though you are emotionally tied to it, you know, you love your friend and you want him to do well, you could still be more rational than he can be because he's in it, man.

He's in it. And so we need to establish the facts of the matter, guys. That's my whole point.

When the emotions are running, I'm not saying cut them off. What I am saying though is that a Christian, if we're gonna talk about justice, we need to be able to establish the facts of the matter first.

And when you start off an article, George Floyd murdered and squeezed the life out of this black man because he was black.

It's something like that. When you start off like that, and then you proceed to give me nothing but emotions, I need to be on guard.

And I suggest that you are on guard when that kind of thing happens because you have to love Derek Floyd, George Floyd.

George Floyd is your neighbor. You have to love Shai Lin. That man is your brother and your neighbor.

But so is Derek Chauvin. Shai Lin, Derek Chauvin, George Floyd, everybody else, you have to love them according to God's standard.

And so that's it. That's all I'm saying, man. We have to love our neighbor and brother Shai Lin, but we can't love

Shai Lin at the expense of Derek Chauvin. Anyway, thanks for watching.

I appreciate it. Thank you for the comments, everybody. I appreciate the pushback. The quality of the pushback was A+. God bless you.