reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Commission Thorne is asked if he knows what a Karen is, to which he responds affirmatively. The speaker then accuses him of sounding like a Karen. Commission Thorne requests to respond, expressing his frustration at being called names like privileged and Karen solely based on his appearance. He emphasizes that people shouldn't judge him based on his skin color without knowing his character or upbringing.

Speaker 0 questions the idea of representative groups and opposes representing individuals based on group identity, using the example of Jewish representation in Congress. Speaker 1 argues that the entire population is not fully represented, noting the absence of a Black female president. Speaker 0 raises the question of whether Jews are considered white, stating it's been debated and depends on the context. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 directly if he identifies as white. Speaker 0 clarifies he's a man of Jewish ethnicity, sometimes grouped with white, sometimes not, depending on who is doing the grouping. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 is not white at all. Speaker 0 reiterates that it depends on the context and acknowledges that Jews have been grouped both with and without white people.

Speaker 0: What the do I have to do in this council in order to get respect as a black woman? I'm not afraid of anybody here. When I make a mistake, I will be clear. I don't hate you as a white woman. I don't hate you as a white man. I am sick and tired of this body so stupidly racially divided, so afraid, so depraved. People with no faith because they are afraid of their losing their advancement. They're afraid of bargaining. They're afraid of leveraging. These people have, oh my god. I can't even call you cowards because desperation deserves mercy. Cancer to redistricting. Fine. We give it to a white woman. Can we all get along? Can we get together? Can we love each other now? Can we make sure that black and brown babies don't die? Can we make sure that cops don't kill before people are proven innocent? Can we do that? No. No. No. No. Because this body crucifies you first because of allegations. This is not a court. You don't get to crucify people before they're proven guilty. They're innocent until proven guilty. Amen. Now after this, I will look forward to working with you because I have stamina. I believe, as Baldwin said, what you do not what you say. Your votes here sometimes are racist. You move sometimes in a way that hurts my people. Speaker 1: Yes. Say that. Speaker 0: And then when I get up to stand up and talk, oh, all she talks about is black stuff. Speaker 1: Yes. You should. Good. Speaker 0: I am here to represent every single black woman and man that suffers in the community. God has my back. Speaker 1: You got your Speaker 0: am not afraid to not have political asylum or any type of affiliations or connections. I came here, I fear none, no man, but my Lord. Amen. I came here to serve people. I came here to love. I came here to grow. But people talk about this racial equity thing. It's all fake. Speaker 1: Thank you. And Speaker 0: you do politics and you hurt each other. And yet, here I am, five foot tall African woman from the projects. And I am here to tell you, if the voters don't vote me back Speaker 1: We are get votes back.

The speaker recounts an experience where villagers questioned their presence because they were not white. The villagers were accustomed to white Americans and seemed confused by someone who looked like them offering help. They questioned, "You that look like us? You're here to help us, to save us? What happened to the white people?" The speaker also mentions being perceived differently due to being bald and childless, noting that in the villagers' culture, a woman without children is not considered a "full woman."

Commission Thorne is asked if he knows what a Karen is, and he is compared to one. He expresses his frustration at being called names and judged based on his appearance, without people knowing his upbringing or character. He resents being labeled as privileged and a Karen solely based on his skin color.

Speaker 0: We already have a n-word mayor. We don't need any more n-word big shots. Speaker 1: Poor kids are just as bright and tall as white kids. Speaker 0: The first mainstream African American was clean and nice. Speaker 1: If you have a problem figuring out whether you're premier Trump and you ain't black. Speaker 0: A Black woman helped me stay sequestered by stocking shelves. Speaker 0: Our community is as diverse as the Bronx, Miami, and San Antonio. Speaker 1: The Latino community is incredibly diverse, unlike the African American community. Speaker 1: Cancel it, Miguel. That's how you play.

Speaker 0 asks if it is possible to change one's race, to which Speaker 1 responds that race is inherent and rooted in one's origins from long ago. Speaker 0 then draws a parallel to gender, questioning if it is also determined at birth. Speaker 1 acknowledges the similarity but suggests that gender and race are distinct.

Speaker 0: Oppose white supremacists. Don't single out the press. Speaker 1: We already have a black mayor. No need for more black big shots. Speaker 0: Determine if you support Trump, you're not black. Can't go to a 711 without an Indian accent. Speaker 2: We used to joke about that, but he was a friend, mentor, and a great guy.

In a predominantly white neighborhood, there's a discussion about the behavior of the residents. One person expresses confusion about why certain individuals are sent to this area, noting its Trump-supporting demographic. Another person points out the irony of a black woman criticizing white people for being "nasty" when no white individuals are visibly doing anything wrong. This raises the notion that white people can also experience racism.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's ethnicity, stating they look "ambiguous" and "weird," and asks if they are Arab or Indian. Speaker 1 identifies as Indian, Ugandan, and a New Yorker. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 would claim African American status, like Elon Musk. Speaker 1 says they would not. Speaker 0, noting Speaker 1 is African, asks why not, stating their own middle name is Kwame. Speaker 1 affirms they are proud to be Ugandan.

Speaker 0 claims Black Americans are the wealthiest black people globally and believes victimhood is a hindrance, asserting nothing holds black people back and they benefit from advantages like lower college test score requirements and freedom of speech. Speaker 1 objects to the "victim mentality" claim. Speaker 1 states that people say the n-word to them frequently. Speaker 0 expresses disbelief and accuses Speaker 1 of a "race hoax" akin to Jussie Smollett, suggesting the alleged incident is fabricated to portray white students as racist. Speaker 0 asks if a black person said the n-word. Speaker 1 does not answer the question. Speaker 0 argues that if the n-word wasn't used as an insult, it shouldn't be presented as evidence of racism.

The speaker accuses their family members of racism, but it is unclear if Megan ever mentioned it directly. There were concerns about her skin color, which could be seen as a form of racism. However, the speaker cannot confirm this as they did not live within the family.

The conversation opens with a conflicting, tense dynamic where Speaker 0 urges not to yell or call names. Speaker 1 responds that they curse but do not target anyone, and accuses others of hypocrisy, noting they’re being criticized for their tone while others—described as “good Christians”—don’t turn the other cheek. Speaker 1 jokes about perceptions of race, saying “Let them think I’m brown,” and suggests that people who call them brown are usually very white. Speaker 0 initially misidentifies their ethnicity, and Speaker 1 asserts they’re Italian/Greek, a Mediterranean, and disputes that anyone is being attacked for being brown. The exchange includes a back-and-forth about who is attacking whom and whether statements constitute a brown jacketing of a fellow European, with Speaker 1 emphasizing that “he wasn’t attacking anybody” and that the other party is being hypocritical. Speaker 0 questions whether it’s a “secret” operation and references the ongoing debate as part of a larger pattern. Speaker 1 insists that the attack was mischaracterized as against white people, insisting he is white and Italian, and that Speaker 0’s group is engaging in broader “art of war” tactics that have subverted rooms with their “brown shit.” Speaker 2 and Speaker 3 enter, noting who has historically called Mister Eskeno “brown” (Timmy g, Meow Wealian, Delco eighty eight, and others), while Speaker 1 challenges the others’ ability to hear his spirit and how he talks. The tone remains heated as Speaker 3 attempts to curb the disruption, telling Mister B to stop, and a brief moment of call for decorum occurs: “Let's have a little decorum, a little respect,” with all parties identifying as European. There is a brief aside about Eskeno speaking Greek, implying that if Eskeno weren’t Greek, his language would cast doubt on certain claims about race or heritage; a separate comment on “brown jacket Greeks” is offered but not fully endorsed. The discussion shifts toward a contentious framing of ethnicity and political ideology within the group, culminating in a set of stark, historical claims attributed to the Bolshevik revolution. The speaker enumerates Jewish presence in key Soviet roles: Bolshevik regime 39% of senior security posts Jewish; 40% of high-ranking NKVD officers Jewish; 50% of NKVD secret police generals Jewish; 78% of commissars Jewish; 92% of Gulag commanders Jewish. The segment ends with these statistics being stated as factual points for consideration. Key figures named in the dialogue include Speaker 0, Speaker 1, Speaker 2, Speaker 3, Mister B, and Mister Eskeno (Eskeno), with ongoing tensions around race, ethnicity, discourse style, and the interpretation of historical data.

The speaker questions the racial identity of a woman who transitioned from identifying as Indian to black. Another person clarifies that she has always identified as black. The speaker expresses confusion and suggests further investigation. The conversation becomes tense as the question is repeated.

Speaker 0 shares a racist online comment they received: "If her parents did not immigrate here, she would be sleeping in cow shit with no rights, the irony." Speaker 0 asks their mother to react to the comment. The mother asks for clarification, then states that they did have cows in their house, so it's not a big deal.

Speaker 0 tells Speaker 1 she will be taken too because she has brown skin. Speaker 1 calls this racist, stating she is an American citizen. Speaker 0 says it doesn't matter, and Speaker 1 accuses her of saying she will be deported because she is brown. Speaker 1 says she voted for Donald Trump, who she met and is very nice, and that Speaker 0 is racist. Speaker 0 says Speaker 1 is supporting mass deportation. Speaker 1 says she supports mass deportation of people who are not American citizens. Speaker 0 says she is Catholic. Speaker 1 says American citizens are not going to get deported. Speaker 0 says potentially, citing Raz Baraka's arrest, claiming he was targeted by ICE. Speaker 1 says he was charged with trespassing. Speaker 1 calls Speaker 0 a whole ass adult calling people Nazis in 2025. Speaker 0 says this is Nazi behavior. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 thinks it was racist to tell her she was going to get deported because she's brown. Speaker 0 says she doesn't know that happened.

The speaker predicts that as the United States becomes nonwhite and white people become a minority, someone will eventually claim to represent white people. The speaker states they will reject this person, because no one speaks for them simply because they share the same skin color. The speaker says agreement, not shared skin color, is what allows someone to speak for them. The speaker equates the idea that someone of a certain skin color or ethnic background automatically speaks on behalf of all people who share that skin color or ethnic background to a Nazi idea. The speaker says they will oppose this, even when it happens to them.

Speaker 0: We already have a n-word mayor. We don't need any more n-word big shots. Speaker 1: Are you still going to vote for Joe? Poor kids are just as bright and tall as white kids. If you can't decide if you're for Trump, then you're not black. You can't go to a 711 without an Indian accent. There's a foot. Speaker 2: In this clip, Biden mistakes a 6-year-old girl for a 17-year-old and touches her face and hair. Speaker 1: How old are you, 17? Oh, 6. Speaker 2: Again, he grabs her face and hair. Speaker 0: We already have a n-word mayor. We don't need any more n-word.

Speaker 0 questions why there is a focus on Kamala Harris' racial identity, emphasizing her biracial background. Speaker 1 shifts the conversation to Harris' political record, highlighting criticisms of her policies and performance. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1 for repeatedly mentioning Harris' race, while Speaker 1 defends the focus on policy issues over identity politics. The discussion ends with Speaker 0 asserting that Harris is both Indian and Black, and criticizing the repetition of her racial background.

When the speaker rapped in high school, people said they were "tight for a white dude" or "tight for a white girl." The speaker responded to these comments by stating, "I'm not white, I'm Jewish." This was repeated multiple times.

Speaker 0 expresses frustration with being labeled as an African American, stating that they identify as simply American. Speaker 1 reacts strongly to this statement, causing a stir on Twitter. Speaker 2 interrupts, asking for clarification. Speaker 0 explains that while they don't know their African roots, they do know their roots are in Louisiana. They believe in being colorless and that everyone is just a person. Speaker 2 warns that Speaker 0 will face backlash for rejecting the African American label. Speaker 0 insists on not labeling themselves and reiterates that they are American. The conversation ends abruptly.

The speaker questions the identity of a woman who was of Indian heritage but now identifies as black. They express confusion and doubt about her racial identity. Another speaker clarifies that she has always identified as black. The first speaker continues to question her authenticity, suggesting that her change in identity was sudden and insincere. The second speaker attempts to ask for a direct answer, but the first speaker avoids giving a clear response.

Excuse me, sorry to interrupt. I'm just trying to talk. What do you want to know? So go. What are you doing here then? It's a white country. Well, you hate white people. He makes you...He hates white people, everybody. This man here, he hates white people. That's what you just said. You say you hate white people. This man just said to me that he hates white people. This man, he says he won't talk to me because I'm white. He hates white people. Just go. No. You go away.

A coworker excitedly informed the speaker that Michelle Obama is running for president. The speaker questions why they should vote for her just because she is black, expressing frustration with black people falling for such assumptions. The coworker takes offense and accuses the speaker of being a "coon" or a supporter of racism. The speaker asks if Michelle Obama is really running and requests someone to research it, also questioning if she is transgender.

Speaker 0 asks Steve how he is doing, but Steve makes a comment about Speaker 0's hair, which Speaker 0 finds offensive as a black person. Speaker 0 explains that they face similar microaggressions at work and asks Steve to stop making comments about their hair. Speaker 0 mentions that they don't need Steve to constantly clarify that their hair is different each time, as it makes them uncomfortable. Speaker 0 emphasizes that they are not seeking validation, just asking for respect and understanding.