Hello and welcome to the political orphanage, a show for thinkers, jokers, and

Dulcet baritones, who feel alienated by the Red Team Blue Team slap fight.

I'm your host, Andrew Heaton.

And today, we are going to get into some deep

tectonic plates of the culture war today, gang, how people make the determination about if

something is racist or sexist. As in, what are the mental protocols and diagnostics that

people rely on to arrive at their particular conclusion? When it comes to determining racism

and sexism, how to red team and blue team tend to think. Now, I will forgive you. If just as I said that, you internally went,

they think like idiots. They think wrong, obviously. Look, I get it. I get it. I have strong

opinions on what constitutes racism, too, friend. So let me be clear on what we're doing today.

We're not discussing whether Red Team or Blue Team has the

better terms or ideology. This isn't a trial about whether deep down Red Team is racist and

uneducated or deep down Blue Team's actually even more racist because they make everything about

identity. We're not doing that. This is a diagnostic episode, how people think, how they determine what is racist or sexist.

So before we jump in, I want to prime you for this with an analogy.

Let's say, hypothetically, we're both Jesuit priests, and we've been sent to India to meet Hindus with the explicit

purpose of learning how Hindus think about gods and theology in the afterlife. What are the

patterns, the preoccupations, the thought processes that these Indian folks tend to employ when approaching theology.

Now, obviously, you and me being Jesuit priests, we think Catholicism is right, and the correct

religion, and Hinduism is not as good. Be better if they converted. In this scenario, my name is

Father Mario Boniface

Harkonan, and your name is Monsignor Pedro L. McGillicuddy. But we're not here to argue with the Hindus

...