Oh, hi there. Mike, we’ve got guests!
Oh, hey, howdy! You know, Dave and I have
been moving out now that we’ve got this
channel off the ground, and I found a DVD
I haven’t seen in years. This is The Point.
Its an animated film released from 1971 that
no one’s ever heard of, and honestly I prefer
it that way. It’s a cheap movie, popcorn
flick, really just a vessel for a great soundtrack
by Harry Nilsson.
In the Land of Point, everyone and everything
has a point — as in a physical point on
their heads and such — except for a boy
named Oblio. Oblio is discriminated against
by his peers and, eventually, because the
law states that everything and everyone in
the Land of Point must have a point, Oblio
is exiled to the Pointless Forest. There,
he discovers that the Pointless Forest is
full of points and, in fact, everything and
everyone he meets on his journey has a point.
Oblio returns to the Land of Point with this
knowledge and proclaims that, like all things,
even those in the Pointless Forest, he must
have a point as well. The crowd cheers, the
points on the people and on the town begin
to melt away, and Oblio’s hat is removed
to reveal a point on his head.
The literal theme of the movie is, “Everything
has a point,” but how you interpret the
word “point” might wholly change what
that means. Your interpretation is informed
by your context.
If we were aliens visiting Earth, and our
only source of information about Earth was
this movie, we might infer that everything
on the planet has some conical shape attached
to it… but we’re not, and that’s not
what the movie is about, of course. Because
we have a linguistic context for the other
meanings of the word “point”, and an understanding
that the space-alien reading would be absurd,
we’re able to understand that the movie
is alluding to something else. Because nothing
exists in a vacuum. Context informs connotation,
which in turn forms the theme: the worldview.
This is all basic artistic analysis-type stuff,
but I find that the manipulation or outright
refusal of context runs rampant on the internet,
especially right-wing Youtube.
Oh, I can see that.
Today I wanted to take a look at right-wing
responses to left-wing responses to right-wing
hot takes. A bit silly, I know. My intention
was to find and dismantle the more in-depth
arguments of online right-wing communities,
rather than those of their chief propagandists
like Sargon of Akkad, Black Pigeon Speaks,
and Paul Joseph Watson.
Alright, while you get started I’m going
to take some of these things out to the car.
Oh sure, brilliant.
It can be difficult to pick out and dissect
the underlying arguments in any of these videos
because it’s rare that these pundits actually
engage with anything but the same well-scripted
surface-level reactionary talking points about
race, gender, sexuality, and economics. It’s
not until their supporters engage with critics
that you start to see the actual reasoning
behind any of these right-wing viewpoints.
It’s these smaller YouTubers who actually
dig into the meat of the broader arguments
their pundits pose and, in doing so, reveal
the core assumptions that drive their beliefs.
I watched more than 30 of these right-wing
responses and selected a few of the more level-headed
retorts to leftist YouTubers like Shaun, Hbomberguy,
and Three Arrows, all of whom I recommend.
The core failing of every response is a lack
of context, but in many cases that lack of
context is a means by which alt-right views
are propagated.
This video will explore how the right omits
context, intentionally or not, to propagate
a hateful kind of ignorance among their base.
I’d recommend you watch all these videos
beforehand just to ensure that I don’t misrepresent
anyone’s arguments, but I also understand
that this is about seven-and-a-half hours
of content so I’ll try to include all of
the relevant information I can today.
And also keep in mind that some of these clips
are laced with some pretty hateful rhetoric,
so consider this your content warning.
In 2017, Lauren Chen, also known as Roaming
Millennial, made a video called People of
Color: You Are Not Oppressed. In this video,
Chen posits that systemic oppression no longer
exists in the United States because there
are no laws that discriminate against race.
She contends that the large disparity in black
incarcerations isn’t a sign of oppression
because these people were pulled through the
justice system, which on paper does not discriminate.
Obviously in the United States there are no
legal rights that a white person possesses
that a non-white person does not and there
are no laws on the books that reference an
individual’s race in any way.
Right, I mean our legal system, our entire
system of government is not one that is racially
coded.
Later that year, YouTuber Shaun made a response
video titled A Response to Roaming Millennial's
"People of Color: You Are Not Oppressed, in
which Shaun rebuts that legality is only the
paperwork, and that oppression runs deeper
than law. Shaun presents statistics that show
the legal system often favors white people
over black people, even when the charges are
exactly the same. Regardless of how the laws
are written on paper, decisions still come
down to judges and juries, who may have their
own prejudices.
On an individual level, controlling for all
the factors except race, black men still get
longer sentences than white men. And because
they get longer sentences than white men,
they will on average be in prison for longer
and therefore at least some part of their
overrepresentation in the prison system is
accounted for by this unfair sentencing. Any
argument for this to be fair that mentions
black people’s increased relative likelihood
of being criminals would have to therefore
argue that individual black people deserve
longer individual sentences relative to other
races.
In 2018, T Я U Σ Ð I L T O M hosted a live
stream called Watching ‘Shaun’’, in
which he commented on Shaun’s response video
in real time.
True Diltom says that, yes, there are people
who discriminate, but the actions of those
individuals, even if they are powerful individuals,
do not constitute oppression because there
is no societal entity actively bearing its
weight on a group.
The state or its parts that coerce by means
of hard power can surely oppress, but people
using non-aggravated means such as exclusion
or discrimination to direct people or society
in some way is not oppression. For instance,
in the private sector, if I don't want to
do business with a black guy because he’s
black, you may think this is horrible for
whatever reason, and maybe it is, but it’s
surely not oppressive contrary to what many
people on the left might think.
This is, frankly speaking, false. Oppression
is the unjust use of power. If we believe
that discrimination based on race is unjust
— which True Diltom gives a resounding “maybe”
on — and a business owner has the power
to decide whom their business serves, then
that is oppression. Drawing an arbitrary line
between the power exerted by the state and
the power exerted by individuals in that state
turns the state into an immutable abstract
that those in power can essentially hide behind.
Why, isn’t there any other way?
The law is the law king, you cannot fight
that.
The law is the law. I never looked at it quite
like that.
Diltom also counters Shaun’s statistics
about the legal system’s bias. He contends
that, statistically, black people receive
longer sentences because they either are more
likely to have been carrying a weapon at the
time of the crime, or because they are more
likely to have served time once before. The
statistics he poses are factual, but neither
Diltom nor Roaming Millennial attempt to speculate
why black people might be more likely to commit
a crime in the first place, why black people
might be more likely to carry a weapon at
any given time, or why they are consistently
more likely to be arrested rather than let
off with a warning.
The real answer to why a black person might
be more likely to commit a crime is of course
rooted in systemic poverty, poverty that finds
its roots in slavery and discrimination, and
is currently upheld by racial oppression,
but because they don’t believe that oppression
exists, they have to chalk it up to an inherent
racial difference. But they can’t say that
out loud, can they?
Halfway through the video, Shaun asks why
black people commit more crimes. True Diltom
interjects to say this:
“One doesn’t have to give an answer to,
like, explain why the disparity exists, but
if we control for all variables and the only
one left that can predict these differences
is race, then the cause of these differences
is probably racial.”
And it’s not clear whether he’s speaking
in hypotheticals at this point, but it really
doesn't matter. His point has been made.
A study that True Diltom uses to write off
race as a non-issue is Racial Disparity in
Federal Criminal Statistics7 published by
the University of Michigan, which argues that
race is likely not the sole agent of correlation.
Instead, the study posits, it’s things like
socioeconomic status and high-school dropout
rates that are more closely aligned with criminality.
The study is correct in asserting this, but
again, True Diltom leaves it at that. He gets
a point for displacing some of the blame from
the judicial process that Shaun assigned,
but he doesn’t take the necessary next step
to consider whether, or why for that matter,
race is so closely tied to socioeconomic status
and high-school dropout rates in the first
place.
Ultimately, Diltom makes the same mistake
as many other right-wing YouTubers by hopping
off the deduction train as early as possible
and trying to avoid letting context get in
the way of their worldview.
Diltom presents a New York Times report that
shows white people are both more likely to
remain rich and rise to wealth than black
people, and that black people are more likely
to fall into poverty from wealth and remain
in poverty than white people. And with no
explanation or discussion of what might be
causing that disparity, True Diltom closes
the study with this:
The sons of black families from the top 1%
had about the same chance of being incarcerated
on a given day as the sons of white families
earning $36,000, which is about $20,000 below
the average for Americans. And you can see
how this trend maintains itself. So that is
pretty much the whole point here. And is there
any other data here? … Anyway, I think we
get the point.
I hope the irony is not lost on you.
In a video by Shaun called Source Check: The
XY Einzenfall Map Shaun looks at a since deactivated
Facebook group that supposedly documented
and mapped every case of migrant crime in
Germany in 2016. Shaun points out that not
only are there duplicates of reports in this
map, but many of the reports are simply, well,
reports. Any suspect of a crime who was described
by witnesses as non-white was placed on this
map, regardless of whether their immigrant
status was actually known. And most hilariously,
Shaun walks through every case of reported
arson and exposes most of them as simple cooking
fires.
A cooking fire, a cooking fire, a cooking
fire, another cooking fire, another cooking
fire, firecrackers set off a fire alarm accidentally,
a cooking fire....
Shaun concludes that the map wildly misrepresents
migrant crime, likely in order to perpetuate
anti-immigrant sentiment.
This map is silly. It is not a list of confirmed
migrant and refugee crimes. It is ridiculous
and unscientific moral panic. It’s bigotry,
anti-immigrant sentiment, and anti-Islamic
racism.
One YouTuber who had previously used the map
to peddle such anti-immigrant sentiments was
Kraut and Tea, who later watched Shaun’s
video and attempted to rebut it.
The crux of Kraut’s video response, called
Legalising Arson with Shaun, is the assertion
that Shaun is wrong to not consider cooking
fires to be arson. According to German law,
Kraut points out, cooking fires are considered
“criminally negligent arson” and therefore
deserve to be posted on the map as crimes.
Cause a fire through your stupidity or carelessness,
and people get injured or even killed. And
I actually went to a real law faculty at my
university and asked in the law library and
was told that this would then fall under the
section of death through criminal negligence
under paragraph 222 punishable with up to
five years in prison and bodily harm from
criminal negligence under paragraph 229 punishable
with up to three years in prison.
And technically, he’s right that cooking
fires are legally considered arson, but what’s
his point?
Kraut’s anti-immigrant argument depends
on his viewers not making the very distinction
that Shaun does: that cooking fires are materially
different from malicious and deliberate arson,
regardless of whether they both fall into
the same legal category.
Aside from the obvious concern that relying
on laws as one’s own framework for moral
judgement ignores the history of discriminatory
laws and the susceptibility of the legal system
to capitalism, which actively often seeks
to undermine personal liberties of most people
— [deep breath] — the stubborn refusal
to dive any deeper than an “arson is arson”
argument is baffling.
The law is the law
Effectively, Kraut is saying that because
they can both be referred to by a broader
title, using specific language is somehow
missing the point. By the same reasoning,
we might as well teach preschoolers the word
“thing” and then give everyone the rest
of the day off.
But if that kind of reasoning is so obviously
absurd, what does Kraut have to gain by asking
his viewers to adopt it anyway?
Well, by insisting that cooking fires be called
arson, Kraut is asking you to pin the connotation
associated with arsonists onto people in homes
that just suffer kitchen fires. This is very
convenient, given that immigrants are a lot
more likely to live in cheaper, low-quality
housing where faulty appliances and non-compliance
with fire code contribute to a higher rate
of such accidental fires.
Like the Grenfell Tower
Exactly. So even if…
The law is the law
… Kraut intends to use to the connotations
behind the word “arson” to paint immigrants
as disproportionately dangerous. That is his
point.
I think it’s worth pointing out that many
of the points we’ve made have also been
made in a since-removed response to the response
by Shaun himself. The video was since unlisted
on the grounds that some of its content reflects
some at-the-time rather toxic YouTube drama,
and out of respect for his wishes, I’ll
leave the specifics of the unlisted video
out of this, but I have to say, I think there’s
value in keeping these specific criticisms
public so long as Kraut’s video remains
on YouTube.
I agree. By the way, I just finished taking
the furniture out to the car, do you mind
packing up some of the dishes?
Oh yeah sure
I’ll take the next one
Cheers
In 2017, Hbomberguy made a two-part video
series called Measured Response: Bill Nye
VS Pseudoscience, in which Hbomberguy debunks
a number of YouTubers who try to criticize
Bill Nye for explaining that sex, gender,
sexual preference, and gender expression all
exist on separate spectrums.
It’s very quick to check and the studies
that result from checking are very informative
and interesting and challenge the idea that
gender expression is made up and equivalent
to just trying to be fashionable.
The next year, Zarathustra’s Serpent posted
a video on the YouTube channel The Thinkery
called Hbomberguy: An Unmeasured Response.
In the video, Zarathustra actually agrees
with the science Bill Nye presents but paints
an inaccurate picture of modern social justice
movements that is reflected often in the talking
points of the right.
Firstly, Zarathustra claims that the social
justice movements believe gender and gender
expression have nothing to do with biology.
So what is the picture that the social justice
movement is trying to impose? Well, first
of all they’re exploiting the fact that
science says that there isn’t a perfect
correlation between sex, gender, and expression
and twist it to deceive uninformed people
into thinking that there is no correlation
at all, and once they make them believe that
gender identity isn’t correlated with biology,
they establish the idea that it is completely
a social construct.
This claim is false, but it’s a popular
strawman used to avoid contending with the
*real* argument, which is that biological
sex should not automatically, legally presume
one’s gender.
Models like the popular Genderbread Person
explicitly acknowledge ‘anatomical sex’
as a *component* of gender. Not the whole
thing, but part of it.
By and large social justice movements don’t
claim that gender and biological sex are unrelated,
but they do believe that the extent to which
they’re perceived to be tied is exaggerated
in today’s patriarchal, heteronormative
society. Society discourages and strips legal
rights from those who don’t adhere to gender
norms, and gender norms are being wielded
as a weapon of oppression by those in power
in both the workplace and the political sphere.
Some recent examples might include the open
hostility toward Congresswoman Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez, any debate about bathroom bills,
and the tedium involved in legally changing
one’s gender versus changing one’s name.
The claim that gender is independent of biological
sex is a strawman, and it’s an unfortunately
common one. It’s a false context that the
right applies to progressive arguments, and
that false context taints everything that
comes after.
This problem is exacerbated when Zarathustra
displaces his frustration with the apparent
wealth of gender identities onto a couple
of smaller non-binary YouTubers, many of whom
openly discuss their experiences with gender
and gender expression and acknowledge that
they’re still growing and learning about
themselves.
Zarathustra sees the desire to give a label
to one’s specific gender experience as being
selfish and detrimental toward the use of
more widely applicable labels like “male”,
“female”, and “nonbinary.” Zarathustra
posits that to use a word like “genderfluid”
actively belittles and undermines those more
pervasive terms and therefore the English
language as a whole.
If we add more gender identities to our language,
we will be labeling people against their will.
These kids may think that this identity that
they create belongs only to them, but that’s
not how the human mind works. The logic that
turns every identity into a category that
includes several items is part of our nature,
and is not something that we can avoid.
I think the core failing of Zarathustra’s
argument is assuming that language is a kind
of zero-sum game in which the existence and
use of more specific words actively saps power
and utility from the broader categories they
fall under. Assuming the English language
is one entity that can be tainted is misguided,
and often that assumption is the beginning
of a discriminatory slippery slope that leads
to enforcing things like “proper English”
and quote-unquote “lesser” dialects spoken
by the poor or minorities.
Labels and categories are just a tool in the
toolbox of identity, and if people want to
use labels to identify themselves, that’s
fine and in many cases useful. However, it’s
important to know that these same tools are
being used to oppress non-cisgender people.
It’s not the categories that LGBTQ activists
want to tear down; it’s the use of involuntary
categories by lawmakers and bigots in power
to strip away their fundamental human rights
— a strikingly obvious example is the White
House’s expressed interest in legally defining
gender based on genitalia at birth and the
recent ban on transgender people serving in
the American military. Categories and labels
should be opt-in, and in a time when oppressed
groups are seeking community, labels can be
an effective way to communicate and support
one another in the face of adversity.
In a similar sense, people’s desires to
escape traditional pronouns are not founded
on the idea that the word “he” or “she”
is inherently sexist, but rather that the
connotations that come with those words don’t
accurately describe them. The right see the
desire to change pronouns as nonsensical and
narcissistic, but even if you believe that’s
the case, what harm is it doing? I mean, no
one led protests when Prince wanted to change
his name to… well, this. Further discussion
of self-identification is best left to the
many eloquent trans and nonbinary YouTubers
, but the long and short of it is that you
probably shouldn’t judge someone’s actions
if you don’t understand the context: that
is, their personal experience.
The reactionary right seem to believe that
these feminists, LGBTQ activists, and racial
equality activists are simply coming out of
the woodwork to claim they’re oppressed
and collect some form of compensation. To
the right, when LGBTQ activists say they want
to “dismantle gender norms,” they see
a rejection of biology — rather than a desire
to be rid of the aspects of gender that contribute
to an oppressive society.
These communities on the right don’t seem
to understand that progressive movements are
responding to injustices, and so the right
doesn’t take the context of those injustices
into account when they listen to these movements.
Zarathustra makes this mistake throughout
the video when describing LGBTQ movements,
and it undermines his credibility as a result.
Zarathustra and others strip the context away
from these arguments, usually to nitpick their
semantics once they’ve reframed those arguments
in their favor.
In 2018, Three Arrows made a video called
How "Cultural Marxism" became the Far-Right's
Scapegoat in which Three Arrows outlines the
relationship between the Nazi propagandist
Anti-Semitic term “cultural Bolshevism”
and the modern right-wing term “cultural
marxism.”
Cultural marxism is nothing but a conspiracy
rooted in antisemitism and propagated by people
who fail to understand certain changes in
culture they dislike.
The next month, Endeavour made a response
video called Response to Three Arrows on "Cultural
Marxism” claiming that cultural marxism
isn’t a conspiracy theory but rather an
ideology that’s being used by the left to
undermine “Western culture”.
Three Arrows defines “cultural Marxism”
as a conspiracy theory that posits Marxists
are infiltrating Western culture with things
like feminism and diversity in order to destroy
it. Endeavour disagrees, and instead classifies
cultural marxism as a separate phenomenon.
Everyone seems to have a different definition
on this but the general consensus seems to
be that there is a certain group of people,
namely Marxists, who try to influence western
culture in a certain way to ultimately bring
down western civilization, which they view
as oppressive.
Endeavour defines cultural marxism as the
application of a Marxist “oppressor vs.
oppressed” narrative to cultural groups
rather than to economic groups.
This is what people generally refer to when
they say cultural marxism, it’s the idea
of applying the oppressor versus the oppressed
narrative to culture rather than class as
in traditional Marxism
This is itself pretty ridiculous. Simply claiming
a conflict exists is no more attributable
to Marx than rhyming is to Dr. Seuss. It does,
however, exploit a cultural fear of communism
to villainize a long extant field that already
has a name: critical theory. Under the umbrella
of critical theory are studies like feminist
theory and race theory, which look at historical
power structures between marginalized groups
and their oppressors.
Because the term critical theory exists and
is well-established, the term cultural Marxism
must be meant to imply something else — something
that isn’t conveyed if you were to use the
term critical theory. This is why the term
has been identified as anti-Semitic and conspiratorial,
because the use of a term rooted in anti-Semitism
in active defiance of a more neutral term
like critical theory implies that the person
using the term suspects there’s something
else going on — probably at the hands of
the Jews, honestly. It’s worth noting that
Marx himself was Jewish and his name has been
used as an anti-Semitic dogwhistle for more
than a century.
The phrase “Cultural Marxism” intentionally
frames critical theory around Marx, but if
you don’t have the historical context to
know the relationship between “cultural
Bolshevism” and “cultural Marxism”,
it seems like a wholly innocent term.
Endeavour makes a quick detour to say that
Bolshevism and Maoism both replaced “good
art” with “lesser art,” referring to
the Artist’s Union of the USSR and Mao’s
Cultural Revolution, respectively, in what
seems like an attempt to draw parallels between
these revolutions (inspired by Vladimir Lenin’s
interpretation of Marx’s work) and Hitler’s
Entartete Kunst, or “degenerate art” campaign
against modernism. He also claims to see this
trend reflected in today’s modern art. What
he doesn’t point out is that the suppression
of some art under Bolshevism and Maoism was
imposed by the state, and the art that replaced
it was largely propaganda created, paid for,
and regulated by the state. That’s obviously
not what’s happening with today’s modern
art, but Endeavour’s parallel asserts as
much, in another case of these arguments implying
a kind of conspiracy.
As an aside, I think the more apt parallel
here is how the American government funds
Hollywood blockbusters that portray the US
and the the military in a positive light:
Movies like Michael Bay’s Transformers and
Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel are, in part,
government-funded specifically because they
support the state. It’s a carrot rather
than the stick, but it’s propaganda nonetheless.
Anyway, Endeavour later posits that the fault
in cultural marxism, or critical theory, is
that those who use critical theory attribute
the disparity between men and women exclusively
to oppression and not to a fundamental biological
difference.
When someone says cultural marxism, they are
referring to the oppressor versus oppressed
narrative being applied to things like race,
gender, or culture rather than economic class.
For example, when asked why men take up the
leadership roles of society, feminists would
say it’s because men oppressed women rather
than saying it’s because there’s a fundamental
difference between the genders
Essentially, Endeavour believes critical theory
is a scapegoat used to propagate the idea
of the blank slate and --no surprises here--
to reject biology. He is, of course, wrong,
but based on this claim he asserts that this
is what leads leftists to believe there must
be some oppressive agent causing disparities
between races and genders. For some reason,
no matter how you slice it, it always comes
down to the right accusing the left of ignoring
biology.
It’s the same mistake as earlier, but this
time it’s in conjunction with an anti-Semitic
conspiracy.
Who knew?
In 2016, The Alternative Hypothesis made a
video called White America, in which they
speculated about what America might look like
if all of a sudden there were only white people.
The video pulls out some baffling statistics
and in a lot of cases just assumes that people
of color somehow vanished without their labor,
present and historical, going anywhere. It
becomes clear that the point of this video
is to posit that America would be a better
country if people of color didn’t live in
it.
Later that year, Shaun included a since-unlisted
response in a sort of grab bag-type video.
He rather quickly calls it out for the racist
propaganda that it is, of course emphasizing
that the United States was built on the backs
of slaves and that racial disparities in crime
and wealth are a result of systemic racial
oppression, not genetics. He has this to say:
The only reason to make this video is to further
a white nationalist narrative without admitting
to it.
MIKE: The next day, The Alternative Hypothesis
posted a response called Pseudo-Response to
Shaun and Jen's non-response, in which The
Alternative Hypothesis speaks rather off-the-cuff
about the nature of both their video and Shaun’s.
TAH calls out Shaun for questioning the logistics
of this magical disappearance of non-white
people and instead posits it was simply a
thought experiment. He reframes this as, “Observations
come first.”
I wasn’t talking about this in real terms,
I was just sort of -- you know, observations
come first. You know, let’s look at the
effects here in a sort of disintegrated way
of white people
And I promise, I see what TAH is trying to
say. It’s clear where the calculations for
his speculations come from. But it’s also
clear that, even if it was done unintentionally,
they pull the numbers out of their context
to frame minorities as a hindrance to society.
What white America video was, it was a video
that wasn’t about policy, it was a video
about priors. Okay? Because when, you go in
and you have a policy discussion, there’s
a lot of prior beliefs that go into that policy
discussion. And what Shaun is doing and why
he made such an error in understanding what
my video was about - or what our video was
about - is he’s operating at the level of
policy where that video is operating at the
sort of goes-intos of beliefs that inform
policy.
The video implies policy by nature of its
existing, you see. The text of the piece lacks
an overt discussion of policy, but the theme
of the text broadcasts the intention clear
as day: Get the non-whites out of America,
and America will be better. You can’t divorce
that sentiment from a video about how much
better America would be without people of
color.
The Alternative Hypothesis and so many other
YouTubers use this “I’m just saying,”
attitude as plausible deniability when they
are in fact making racist and sexist assertions.
It doesn’t take a lot of work to see through
it, but once you call it out they’ll blame
you for reaching a conclusion.
It’s “Observations come first,” you
know? Who needs context?
Just because you’re saying one thing, doesn’t
mean you’re not implying something else.
Just because you didn’t mean to imply that
thing, doesn’t mean you didn’t.
And just because it’s not your agenda, doesn’t
mean you’re not pushing someone else’s.
You can’t write a story without a theme.
You can’t present a carefully curated set
of data with a voiceover and image slideshows
without implying a theme, either. You can’t
throw away context and expect the course of
action to be practical.
Everything has a point.
Thanks for watching.
See you next time.
This program was brought to you by viewers
like you. Go to patreon-dot-com- slash-neighborhood-underscore-M-D
to become a sponsor of our program. For more
updates and content, follow The Neighborhood
on Twitter and watch our weekly stream every
Friday on Twitch. Thank you for watching.
