Latest / Think Twice Show / The Ethics of the Workplace ft Fola Evans-Akingbola

Transcript

The Ethics of the Workplace ft Fola Evans-Akingbola · Think Twice Show

• 0:00
  Do you make a bit of money? Do you do a rap for yourself?
• 0:02
  Probably got a nice little watch.
• 0:04
  Do you have a nice little car? There are some philosophers out
• 0:07
  there that say you're a bad person.
• 0:09
  Yeah, they might be right. Let's talk about it.
• 0:24
  Welcome to Think twice. Today we have like an
• 0:27
  unbelievable guest, a superstar, not self became became just by
• 0:31
  me and and like all my friends. They're like, oh, you got an
• 0:35
  episode who's coming on? And I say, oh, she's even my
• 0:38
  agent. They're like who?
• 0:39
  And I'm like this one. They're like, Oh my God, she's
• 0:41
  the she's they I say, OK, that's what we're on.
• 0:44
  Yeah, that's what. But there's a levels now, today
• 0:48
  I'm Benz. My name's Sam Teff.
• 0:50
  And we have. Bola, Evan, Zach and Bola.
• 0:52
  There we go. Full name.
• 0:54
  Myself, Lovely. I won't give you too much of an
• 0:58
  intro, we're going to get straight into it.
• 1:00
  And the first question is, does surviving within a harmful
• 1:04
  system make you complicit? It does not make you complicit.
• 1:08
  Now, I think surviving in a harmful system is just like the
• 1:14
  situation we've been put in. And I think if you don't have a
• 1:16
  choice as to whether you participate in that system or
• 1:18
  not, you can't be held morally responsible.
• 1:21
  So what about you? Yeah, I think I would agree that
• 1:23
  if I have to pick like yes or no, I'm going to say no.
• 1:27
  Surviving in a harmful system doesn't make you complicit
• 1:30
  because there are examples of systems that you don't have a
• 1:32
  choice whether to be a part of, An obvious one being like a
• 1:35
  family system, that kids don't get a choice on what family
• 1:38
  they're brought into. I think to be complicit, you
• 1:41
  have to have a certain amount of power in a situation to be
• 1:45
  complicit. So I was trying to think of an
• 1:47
  example. It's not exactly a system, but
• 1:49
  it's a situation. But I think you could like zoom
• 1:51
  out with it. So if we imagine like a school,
• 1:55
  there's a little boy, let's call him Adair.
• 1:58
  He gets bullied a lot. He goes into the bathroom and
• 2:01
  three boys follow him in and like, beat him up and they're
• 2:04
  bullying him in the bathroom stall.
• 2:05
  In the stall next door, there's a little boy called Alex who's
• 2:09
  quite weak, gets bullied as well.
• 2:11
  And he hears what's happening and he doesn't do anything.
• 2:13
  He just stays in the bathroom stall and is like just trying to
• 2:16
  not get involved. If I was Alex's sister or
• 2:20
  mother, I wouldn't say to Alex when he comes home like you were
• 2:23
  complicit because you didn't try and stop that.
• 2:25
  I wouldn't say he was complicit because he was surviving in the
• 2:28
  situation. He knows if he was to get
• 2:30
  involved, he'd get beaten up, too.
• 2:31
  But slight adjustment. Same boy, Adair goes into the
• 2:35
  bathroom, so there's no one else in there.
• 2:37
  Four boys follow him in. Three of them do the beating up
• 2:40
  and bullying, and a fourth guy, let's call him Joe, watches Stan
• 2:44
  Banner. And it's part of the the
• 2:45
  original he's. Part of the the group of friends
• 2:48
  he watches, he's not really on it.
• 2:50
  He watches it happen. If I'm the mother and the OR the
• 2:53
  sister of that boy, I'd say you were complicit there because you
• 2:55
  had an element of power in the situation to change it.
• 2:59
  You had power to be able to say to your friends, our guys, like,
• 3:02
  let's leave it or something. He knows if he's going to
• 3:05
  intervene, they're not going to turn around and beat him up.
• 3:07
  Whereas our little friend Alex would.
• 3:10
  I'm not saying it's right that Alex was silent in his bathroom
• 3:13
  stool, but he's not complicit. I'm struggling.
• 3:16
  To assign moral complicity because the children, I don't
• 3:20
  know if that's like something you thought about, but when the
• 3:24
  parent goes to the kid, if she was to condemn him, his action
• 3:29
  being silent, it's it would feel harsh because it's a child and
• 3:33
  he maybe doesn't have the like understanding within himself to
• 3:37
  overcome the initial fear potentially.
• 3:40
  And he's obviously just a kid like you.
• 3:41
  You kind of give kids more leeway, don't you?
• 3:44
  But what if your son was the John or the Joe?
• 3:47
  If the school called you up and was like your son didn't do any
• 3:50
  punching. Or anything.
• 3:52
  But he's part of the friendship route and was just standing
• 3:54
  back. You would say.
• 3:55
  You would explain to him like this is what complicity means.
• 3:58
  Like you could have stopped that because you're friends so.
• 4:01
  Essentially, they would probably know that they could have, yeah,
• 4:03
  had some involvement. Or let's even say if they're 15,
• 4:06
  they don't have to be like. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
• 4:08
  So I think that I think this to you need to have a certain
• 4:11
  amount of power in this situation and that amount of
• 4:14
  power is going to vary from like that threshold is different in
• 4:18
  each situation. 100% I agree. I think.
• 4:19
  I think it's a very good distinction to make, actually.
• 4:22
  Yeah, but what if I were to, like, switch the question a
• 4:24
  little bit and say, does driving within a harmful system make you
• 4:28
  complicit? Is it still exactly the same?
• 4:31
  One of you go first, OK? OK, I'll, I'll, I'll take this
• 4:33
  one. I think the moment you thrive
• 4:35
  within a harmful system, my answer is yes, you are
• 4:38
  complicit. That's my default answer before
• 4:42
  we get into the specifics of the situation, because I think when
• 4:44
  you consider any situation where we're trying to assign moral
• 4:48
  complicity, we need to think about how has the harmful system
• 4:53
  rewarded the person, right? If they're thriving by making
• 4:57
  money, for example, the system is rewarding them with financial
• 5:01
  gain. And I think there's a mechanism
• 5:04
  by which financial gain is attributed to the actor within
• 5:07
  the system, right? If you're, say we've been a
• 5:09
  company, the company, their interest is to maximise
• 5:13
  shareholder value, let's say. If you are someone who does that
• 5:16
  within the company, you will be rewarded with money.
• 5:19
  So in a sense, in order to get rewarded and to thrive within
• 5:24
  that system, you've aligned yourself with give the harmful
• 5:27
  systems interest to do that. And I think in most cases where
• 5:32
  you thrive, you are doing that in some sense.
• 5:35
  And that's where the moral complicity for me comes from.
• 5:37
  You've aligned yourself with the interests of that system to be
• 5:40
  then rewarded. That's why the system is
• 5:42
  rewarding you. And what if the system is not
• 5:45
  purely harmful or purely great? Because that's most systems.
• 5:49
  Which is most systems. In some situations, it's not
• 5:52
  feasible to totally tap out of the whole system altogether for
• 5:55
  some people, right? Yeah.
• 5:56
  Yeah, 100%. And it is it is complicated.
• 5:59
  It's not, it's not black and white, but I still think the,
• 6:04
  the, the reason you are paid in this scenario that, that, that
• 6:08
  I've painted, the reason you are thriving is super important.
• 6:11
  Like if for example, you're a police officer, right?
• 6:18
  You are thriving, laughing, really.
• 6:20
  But yeah, you have issue with. The with the their 100%, the the
• 6:30
  the one of the inherent things about the police is that they
• 6:34
  oppressed minorities. It's just something inherent in
• 6:37
  the police system. So if you are a police officer
• 6:40
  who rises from constable to Sergeant to whatever, you've
• 6:43
  aligned yourself with that system.
• 6:46
  And even though in your day-to-day you might be doing
• 6:49
  good things and the police themselves do good things for
• 6:51
  the community, there's an underlying undercurrent of
• 6:55
  exploitation of minorities that I can't get away from.
• 6:59
  And I think in that system, if you thrive, you are morally
• 7:02
  complicit. Even if that person is trying to
• 7:05
  get to a certain point in their career where they're they think
• 7:09
  they can then effect change but. You still can listen.
• 7:13
  Now we're talking like some like real deep 10 year double agent
• 7:17
  like. I think it happens to people all
• 7:19
  the time. I think people get into politics
• 7:22
  because they think like if if I was the Prime Minister, I could
• 7:25
  actually effect change. I think it and then they get
• 7:27
  there and maybe they realise the reality is different.
• 7:30
  But I don't think people necessarily are even doing it on
• 7:33
  like a double agent thing. I think people really think
• 7:35
  that, well, once I get, I get to a position of power, I can do
• 7:39
  things differently. And whether they do that or not,
• 7:41
  you know, it's, it didn't matter.
• 7:43
  Yeah, this kind of does touch on like 1 distinction I've not made
• 7:47
  yet, which is about the phrase morally complicit, right?
• 7:50
  The phrase to me is on some levels of condemnation of what
• 7:55
  you have done, your action is morally wrong.
• 7:57
  But I think you can be morally complicit in things without
• 8:01
  being like an awful person. Like, I think us sitting here in
• 8:04
  this room, like we're fairly privileged.
• 8:07
  There's a level of moral complicity that we have with,
• 8:10
  say, capitalism. It's not an indictment of who we
• 8:14
  are. We're not like awful people.
• 8:16
  But I think we need to recognise that moral complicity and try to
• 8:21
  enact change to balance the books, if that makes sense.
• 8:24
  Yes, that does make sense. You're basically saying there's
• 8:27
  a little grey area. There's a grey area there.
• 8:29
  And I think everyone actually, especially in the West, and I'll
• 8:32
  come on to like an essay that someone wrote that I think you
• 8:36
  guys will find fascinating. But I think everyone has a level
• 8:40
  of moral complicity in something like the world is complicated,
• 8:44
  well involved in all these different systems that we don't,
• 8:47
  we don't choose to be. I think there's a difference
• 8:49
  between moral complicity and acknowledging that we all have
• 8:55
  an element of individual power and collective power that we can
• 8:59
  utilise to effect change. But I think that's different to
• 9:03
  moral complicity. Yeah, exactly.
• 9:05
  So I think if we were to say, no, you're not morally
• 9:08
  complicit, you also wouldn't want people to take that as
• 9:11
  like, well, I'm not more complicit, so I don't have to do
• 9:14
  anything. I think you can still.
• 9:17
  I think you're only complicit if you don't critique it.
• 9:21
  So like if you're part of a system that does harmful things,
• 9:25
  but you don't speak about or you don't try and enact change on
• 9:28
  those harmful things, then you're complicit.
• 9:31
  But I I feel you were relieved that that complicity once you're
• 9:35
  critiquing and you're trying to enact change.
• 9:38
  Yeah. I think I would like make a
• 9:39
  slight distinction between critiquing and actually doing
• 9:42
  something. Yeah.
• 9:43
  I think like I think talking about it is it's kind of easy.
• 9:47
  It's not that there's not that much.
• 9:49
  I don't. I don't know if it is.
• 9:50
  When you're in that system, like for example, say you're in the
• 9:55
  acting industry and someone you've worked with has done
• 9:59
  something or, and you have to actually talk about that.
• 10:03
  I don't think that's easy to do. And similarly even yourself,
• 10:06
  like if you're at work and someone in the company above you
• 10:10
  has done so, it's not easy to critique their behaviour.
• 10:12
  So I think the moment that you do, you're no longer complicit.
• 10:15
  You're obviously, I think at that moment you're now surviving
• 10:17
  in the system. Yes, you're surviving to an
• 10:19
  extent and you're. Not I do I do, I do, I do take
• 10:22
  that. What do you think of people?
• 10:24
  I can't think of an example of a system for this, but maybe you
• 10:26
  can. But what do you think of if
• 10:28
  people tap out? So like the difference between
• 10:31
  being in a system, surviving in it or thriving in it or trying
• 10:35
  to critique it versus being like removing your, you know, people
• 10:38
  that are like, well, I'm going to move to another country,
• 10:40
  disengage. But you still know that it's a
• 10:42
  harmful system harming people over here, but you're choosing
• 10:45
  to disengage. Is that also complicit or is
• 10:48
  that different? Because they could say, well,
• 10:50
  but I'm not actually, I'm not taking part.
• 10:53
  I'm not taking part anyway. I think not taking part and just
• 10:56
  completely removing yourself that that could be acceptable.
• 11:00
  No, I think that's complicit. You've you've moved away from
• 11:02
  the system. You really don't like that one?
• 11:08
  Because, like, it harms somebody and you know, it harms somebody
• 11:12
  and you've then decided to just disengage.
• 11:15
  Like other people don't know it harm someone but you know,
• 11:17
  because. You have the part you have had
• 11:18
  privilege to disengage, right? So I just yeah, 100% like 100%
• 11:24
  that's complicity. I think you see it in the issues
• 11:26
  that we have today. There are there are things that
• 11:28
  that go on in the world that don't affect me day-to-day, like
• 11:31
  at all. But if we stay quiet on those
• 11:33
  things, we are complicit in them happening, I think.
• 11:37
  Yeah, I do think especially if you're quiet, let's say in this
• 11:40
  country, you think the government's doing something
• 11:43
  wrong and you're quiet about your own government.
• 11:46
  That is, definitely. You're complicit.
• 11:49
  You're complicit in what's happening because you've chosen
• 11:51
  not to, not to act, not to speak.
• 11:53
  But I think what it is, it's it's this word complicit, it has
• 11:55
  such negative connotation. And I think if the which is
• 11:59
  fine, that's it makes it an interesting question.
• 12:02
  But I think people have been kind of beaten down to the point
• 12:06
  where they don't feel like they like say what you're saying,
• 12:08
  being in this country or, or any system where you don't feel it's
• 12:11
  going well. They don't feel like they have
• 12:14
  any agents or can do anything. So I want to, I want to touch on
• 12:18
  like individual culpability, right?
• 12:21
  Like, at what point are you culpable and morally complicit?
• 12:25
  So Peter Singer, he's like an Australian philosopher.
• 12:27
  He wrote this essay called Famine, Affluence and Morality,
• 12:31
  right? He wrote it in, I believe in
• 12:33
  1972, so a long time ago. But he's still alive.
• 12:35
  He still talks about it all the time.
• 12:37
  In this essay, he lays out why he thinks everyone who lives in
• 12:40
  the Western world is morally complicit with human suffering,
• 12:44
  right? And he makes like 3 points.
• 12:47
  It's a very short paper. You could read it in like 20
• 12:50
  minutes, OK. He says human suffering is bad,
• 12:54
  right? Point 1.2 if you have the power.
• 12:59
  And this touches on what you were talking about earlier about
• 13:01
  if you've got the power to make change.
• 13:02
  If you've got the power to change something bad and you
• 13:05
  choose not to do that when it's of no moral cost to you, that is
• 13:09
  also bad. You've got the power to change
• 13:11
  something. You don't, you choose not to,
• 13:13
  that's bad. If you in the West are doing
• 13:15
  nothing to alleviate human suffering in the rest of the
• 13:18
  world, in the global S, you are morally complicit in that human
• 13:23
  suffering. Those are the three points he
• 13:24
  makes in the paper. And he talks about very commonly
• 13:28
  used rebuttals to that argument. One of them is proximity.
• 13:32
  People say if I'm, if I can't see it and I it's not next to
• 13:35
  me, how can I be expected to do something about it?
• 13:38
  But his argument is using modern technology, you get to see
• 13:42
  what's happening across the world.
• 13:43
  So you can't say you don't know what's happening.
• 13:45
  And you also have the means by sending money to those places to
• 13:49
  actually do something. It's not like you need to be
• 13:51
  there to do something. You can send money, you can do
• 13:53
  stuff to help people in the global South.
• 13:55
  And this paper rocked philosophy.
• 13:57
  It rocked moral ethics. Like people were like, wait, so
• 14:02
  you're saying I'm bad? Yeah, I'm a bad breed,
• 14:05
  basically. But he's not saying that.
• 14:06
  He's just saying we have to own that we can affect change.
• 14:11
  He is, but he he, he does take it that far.
• 14:13
  He says you are more complicit. You are.
• 14:15
  You are a bad person. If you don't do something, yes.
• 14:19
  It's not even. The same feel, like we're
• 14:20
  singing from the same hint. Necessary, I think I would
• 14:25
  mostly agree, I think, and this is a probably a separate
• 14:27
  conversation. So there's no point going too
• 14:29
  far down it. I slightly get my back up about
• 14:32
  it having to be like W versus global S like this idea that
• 14:36
  like we're all fine over here in the West and it's those melanin
• 14:40
  rich folk down there that need our help.
• 14:42
  Like I felt like he could also just talk about like, oh, you're
• 14:45
  people 2 miles away that are struggling and like the there's
• 14:49
  just, and also there's people in the global S that are like crazy
• 14:52
  powerful and rich. And so I definitely have, like,
• 14:56
  I feel slightly prickly about this idea that it's the West of
• 14:59
  the moral and powerful and everything's great for us and we
• 15:03
  need to help everyone else in the world because they're all
• 15:06
  struggling. Yeah, he's actually from a brand
• 15:08
  of philosophy called utilitarianism.
• 15:10
  OK. And utilitarianism about
• 15:12
  maximising the most amount of good for the most amount of
• 15:14
  people. That philosophy kind of leads
• 15:17
  you down the road of finding the person who's suffering the most,
• 15:20
  right, and trying to impact change the most with the least
• 15:23
  amount of money, right. So he's from that brand of
• 15:26
  philosophy. He's also a white man who lives
• 15:28
  in Australia. You know, I mean, there's,
• 15:29
  there's a reason why I like that his, his paper takes that turn,
• 15:33
  but I, I find it fascinating. I think he's got a very, very
• 15:36
  solid point and people have tried to sort of find holes in
• 15:39
  his logic. And it's bulletproof to me.
• 15:42
  It's actually bulletproof. Like, and, you know, he's
• 15:44
  someone who talks the talk and he walks the walk.
• 15:46
  Like, he's someone who's donated 20% of all of his earnings for
• 15:49
  his entire lifetime to global causes, and he advocates for
• 15:53
  other people doing the same thing.
• 15:54
  Franz Fanon actually talks about the cathartic nature of
• 15:57
  violence. I feel like Buddhist philosophy
• 15:59
  would take a complete opposite stance on that.
• 16:01
  I think violence, it can be definitely cathartic, but I
• 16:04
  think you might still be left with the lot.
• 16:11
  Next thing, does true professionalism require
• 16:14
  challenging authority or obeying?
• 16:17
  Which way would you go? I think professionalism as it is
• 16:20
  in the world today. I just need a challenging or a
• 16:23
  pain. Give me a one word answer.
• 16:29
  Challenging it. Yeah, challenging it.
• 16:33
  What do you think? You know what?
• 16:36
  I flip-flopped, and if I had to choose one, I think it's obeying
• 16:41
  it. Why?
• 16:44
  Why? I'm really the presenter here in
• 16:46
  this episode, so I don't really want to have to give my opinion.
• 16:48
  But because it's different, no. Come on, we need it.
• 16:50
  But because I think people are hired for particular roles and
• 16:57
  you're not hired to change the vision, you're not hired to sort
• 17:01
  of change the mission, you're hired to execute.
• 17:05
  And if I had to like lean away, obviously both are, that's why
• 17:09
  we ask these questions. But if I had to lean away, I
• 17:12
  don't want with my editor, when we finish this episode to
• 17:16
  challenge how we do it, if you understand what I mean.
• 17:19
  All I want you to do is try and fit it in the mission of how we
• 17:23
  create the show. And so I would generally lean to
• 17:26
  obeying it. So like, I have a question for
• 17:28
  you, in fact, OK. So like, as an actor, when the
• 17:33
  director says we're doing it this way, like, yeah, would it
• 17:36
  be professional to challenge that and be like, no, let's
• 17:41
  change it? If I was doing the challenging
• 17:43
  from a place of ego for myself, purely for myself, then that's
• 17:47
  unprofessional. If I'm doing the challenging
• 17:50
  from a place of we're all here to tell a story like
• 17:53
  professionalism about is about following a set of standards for
• 17:56
  a goal for the organisation or the company.
• 17:58
  In that case, we're all trying to shoot this film and tell this
• 18:02
  story in the best, most authentic way we can.
• 18:04
  So in which case, if he's saying I want to do it this way, and I
• 18:08
  have a perspective of I think it would be better if we do it this
• 18:11
  way, it's absolutely professional for me to challenge
• 18:13
  it in a professional way. Challenging authority doesn't
• 18:16
  mean you have to be unprofessional, that it doesn't
• 18:18
  mean you're shouting and screaming and jumping off the
• 18:20
  walls. You can challenge authority in a
• 18:23
  professional way, I think. I agree, I think.
• 18:26
  I think you can challenge authority in a way that doesn't
• 18:30
  like fuck up what the team is trying to do for sure.
• 18:35
  But I still think there's an element of professionalism that
• 18:39
  it's a bit like just be obedient, be quiet and just do
• 18:41
  the thing that you're here to do.
• 18:43
  And I think saying that to people or expecting people to do
• 18:47
  that, it denies like who you are as a person.
• 18:49
  A bit like you're a person who's got ideas.
• 18:51
  You're a person who wants, who speaks, who communicates, like
• 18:55
  in a meeting, when it's time to be professional, what we're
• 18:58
  really saying, OK, be obedient, be quiet, stiff upper lip.
• 19:01
  Certainly don't be emotional. And, like, act how you would at
• 19:05
  home. Right.
• 19:06
  Right. Put on a bit of a facade for us
• 19:08
  so we don't have to deal with, like, follow the person.
• 19:11
  Yeah. The real humanity.
• 19:13
  We just want you as like, you know, we just want you as a
• 19:15
  drone to, like, do the thing that you're here to do.
• 19:17
  Right. And I think a lot of modern
• 19:20
  professionalism, that's how it actually pans out in the
• 19:22
  workplace. And you know, I'm not.
• 19:25
  I'm not with that. I think it's a bit of like power
• 19:28
  and value like so like you said in the first sort of segment, if
• 19:31
  someone, if you don't have much power, I genuinely think that
• 19:37
  your job there is to obey. And the more power you have, the
• 19:40
  more you are meant to challenge authority.
• 19:42
  So you challenging authority gives value.
• 19:45
  You're actually doing your job. Does that make sense?
• 19:47
  But I think when you're like a junior and you're in a new sort
• 19:52
  of organisation, or you could be in that organisation for a long
• 19:55
  time. But if you're if you're a
• 19:56
  junior, I just don't think you can have 100 cooks in the sense
• 20:01
  like I don't I don't think you challenge an authority is is
• 20:05
  valuable could be. It could be, if that junior has
• 20:10
  a really specific and unique perspective that everyone else
• 20:13
  in the leadership is missing and that it would actually help
• 20:17
  things be better overall for the company, like or the
• 20:22
  organisation or the mission or whatever.
• 20:24
  Yeah, I guess I challenge that though.
• 20:25
  I challenge like the, you know, the supreme thing is like
• 20:28
  productivity. I challenge that in itself.
• 20:31
  Like, why is it that anything that that deters from the team's
• 20:35
  productivity is bad? Like, why?
• 20:38
  Totally. I agree.
• 20:38
  Do you know what I mean? Like, I think if you put that at
• 20:41
  the top and you say this is the most important thing, yes, you
• 20:43
  will deny people's humanity in that.
• 20:45
  Right? Yeah.
• 20:46
  I just don't think you need to put that at the very top.
• 20:48
  Right. It's a kind of pursuit of
• 20:50
  productivity and profit above all.
• 20:52
  Else. That's not helped.
• 20:53
  He's changed. He's changed it.
• 20:54
  See what I mean? When I was telling you earlier,
• 20:56
  that's not, that's not what I said.
• 20:57
  I didn't say productivity, but I didn't.
• 20:59
  You use that word like I didn't. Use that word.
• 21:03
  We just, we talked about doing like good work, for example.
• 21:07
  You know what I mean? Like yeah, doing good work
• 21:09
  doesn't mean productivity like it means.
• 21:11
  No, it's not about use of. Professionalism.
• 21:13
  Yeah, professionalism. That's what we're talking about.
• 21:15
  But like what I was saying is the younger person shouldn't or
• 21:19
  the junior person shouldn't speak as much, right?
• 21:21
  And he's equated that to productivity.
• 21:23
  And I'm essentially saying like I'm just saying, it's not about
• 21:27
  solely productivity, it's about like achieving the mission that
• 21:31
  you've set out to do. And generally those with lesser
• 21:34
  experience have less value to offer, therefore shouldn't
• 21:38
  challenge authority. That's that's basically what I'm
• 21:39
  saying. But you would want your editor
• 21:41
  to say something if they were like, hey guys, I actually see a
• 21:44
  way that you could make this even better.
• 21:45
  You would want them to say that. Of course, but that's why I said
• 21:48
  I'm leaning towards obeying, OK, rather than like, it's
• 21:51
  definitely that than challenging authority.
• 21:53
  But like, that's why I think if I had to pick one, generally
• 21:57
  speaking, I'd go because this is the way I actually thought about
• 22:00
  it. If everyone obeyed, what would
• 22:04
  the workplace be like? If everybody challenged
• 22:06
  authority, what would the workplace be like?
• 22:08
  And it would be better if everybody obeyed.
• 22:11
  No, I think, I think that's too extreme of a way to think about
• 22:14
  it. I think you have to think what
• 22:16
  is professionalism? You have.
• 22:19
  To think what is professionalism?
• 22:21
  Professionalism? Professionalism is about
• 22:22
  following a certain set of standards and each company or
• 22:27
  organisation or situation is going to define that for
• 22:29
  themselves. And I think within that set of
• 22:31
  standards there should be a sense of like, if you think you
• 22:35
  can make it better, like speak up and do it in a professional
• 22:41
  way. But there's a culture of
• 22:43
  questioning and making suggestions, like if you're in a
• 22:46
  place where the professional standard is blind obedience,
• 22:50
  that's not a good, that's not a good workplace to be in of.
• 22:53
  Course, but like. But you're saying blind like
• 22:56
  that, everyone obeying, that's blind obedience.
• 22:59
  Of course, but I think that would be better than like
• 23:02
  everybody challenging everything.
• 23:04
  I just, I just don't think because you can't, you can't.
• 23:06
  You can't. Yeah, yeah.
• 23:08
  That's a call. OK, whatever.
• 23:10
  Oh. Great argument.
• 23:12
  Whatever. We can't go towards our mission
• 23:16
  if everybody's challenging everything, but you can if
• 23:19
  everything, everybody's obeying something.
• 23:20
  That's how I see. It I'm going to butcher the
• 23:22
  reference, but there's a reference about a certain
• 23:26
  Japanese company and a certain word in in Japanese business
• 23:30
  culture. And I don't know it, but people
• 23:31
  bring right. And it's about, it was about
• 23:34
  like this ethos of if everyone can make make a slight 1% change
• 23:39
  on the thing that they do, which in itself kind of is that what
• 23:43
  it is? It might be, yeah.
• 23:44
  Like to be able to want to make a 1% change, you need to be able
• 23:47
  to look at something and challenge like how is this
• 23:49
  working right now? How can, and everyone's doing
• 23:51
  that. So actually a culture of
• 23:52
  everyone challenging would be better than a culture of
• 23:54
  everyone obeying, everyone being like it works perfectly.
• 23:57
  We're not going to make any changes.
• 23:59
  I would never advance. No, I, I, I I do think we are
• 24:03
  confusing like improvement with obedience.
• 24:05
  Like I, I, I, I don't if I, if I can do something better, like
• 24:10
  I'd do it better, but I'm still. But you have to be, you have to
• 24:13
  have a challenging and questioning mind in order to
• 24:16
  make a change. And I think, I think people do
• 24:18
  their best work when they're in an environment where they feel
• 24:20
  like they could do that, whether they do it or not, I guess, I
• 24:24
  guess. I'm not against what you guys
• 24:25
  are saying it feels. Like you are.
• 24:29
  I think, I think Ben, you're in that binary though of everyone
• 24:32
  obeys or everyone challenges what what would you?
• 24:35
  Actually question lack on purpose, of course, of course.
• 24:37
  So what? Yeah.
• 24:38
  What would be the idea in your mind?
• 24:41
  OK, this is a way we can do this.
• 24:42
  Yeah. We can put it into percentages.
• 24:44
  Yeah, OK, fine. I would generally say.
• 24:48
  I know he's going to say. I'd go 5050.
• 24:53
  I'd go 5050I. Thought you're going to say 6040
• 24:57
  Sixty. Obey.
• 24:59
  That would probably be. Actually.
• 25:00
  That'd probably be better. I'll go 6040.
• 25:02
  Yeah, yeah, I know my guy. Yeah, I'd go probably 7030, like
• 25:08
  Challenger Challenge. Fuck off.
• 25:10
  What did you say, 7030? Yeah, because men's, to me, the
• 25:16
  environment where everyone can challenge.
• 25:19
  Because you don't challenge if you don't actually believe that
• 25:22
  there's something to challenge, right?
• 25:23
  Sometimes you go to work, you do with your job, and you go home
• 25:26
  because what you're told to do is the right thing to do.
• 25:28
  I'm challenging from a place of servicing the overall mission,
• 25:32
  not challenging from a place of like.
• 25:34
  I want this to be different because I want.
• 25:36
  To take this assignment though that people, generally juniors
• 25:40
  don't have. But you know, when a junior, for
• 25:43
  example, like a kid says to their parent, like, I want to
• 25:46
  play out till 10:00, right? They have no discernment there.
• 25:49
  That's their feeling. Now do you want the kid to have
• 25:53
  never said that? Or do you want them to say that
• 25:55
  and you explain to them why playing out till 10 is not the
• 25:59
  right thing to do? But that's about parenting,
• 26:02
  challenging and obedience, which is different to workplace.
• 26:05
  It's different to workplace, but the junior who doesn't have
• 26:07
  discernment is kind of the kid in the in the workplace, right?
• 26:09
  The the young, they might not understand, maybe because I work
• 26:14
  in a. Workplace that has like.
• 26:16
  There's no time for that. There's no time for that maybe
• 26:19
  because I work in a workplace where there are 50 squad members
• 26:23
  alone and then you have like support stuff around that which
• 26:26
  say 20. So you have like to say we're
• 26:29
  saying like 80 people all together, like from lots of
• 26:31
  different departments who are working to to win A to win a
• 26:34
  competition, right. If 70% of those eighty were
• 26:39
  challenging all the time, we don't get line down.
• 26:41
  No one's saying challenge all the time.
• 26:43
  We're saying it is professional. You can be professional and you
• 26:47
  can challenge. That was not original question
• 26:49
  and that's why I'm not. Saying you can't, but the
• 26:52
  question was does true profession require challenging
• 26:56
  authority? Yes, it requires challenging it.
• 26:58
  I would much rather hire someone that's going to speak up and
• 27:02
  push me and challenge me. So would I.
• 27:04
  There you are. Than someone who's going to be
• 27:06
  blindly obedient so. Would.
• 27:10
  I I'm not sure. But everyone running a large
• 27:12
  organisation, I think it's a little bit different.
• 27:20
  Should you use personal ambition as a way of coping with
• 27:23
  mistreatment in the workplace? I don't think you should.
• 27:27
  I don't think you should, because ultimately.
• 27:30
  That's crazy to say. You know what you just said?
• 27:32
  Really crazy. Wait, what did I say?
• 27:37
  You said no, you shouldn't use personalised ambition as a way
• 27:40
  of coping with mistreatment. No, it's not crazy.
• 27:42
  I'll explain why. I'll explain why.
• 27:44
  I think ultimately when you're mistreated in the workplace,
• 27:48
  what's actually happening is that you're being demeaned,
• 27:50
  right? And a sense of who you are as a
• 27:53
  person is being attacked or, or taken away from you.
• 27:56
  And I think if you react to that with personal excellence as an I
• 28:02
  will excel here, you know, potentially I will show them or
• 28:07
  I will be able to be in a position of ascendancy to change
• 28:10
  the problems that that made me feel that way.
• 28:12
  When you take that route #1 you don't change the structural
• 28:15
  problem that caused you to be demeaned and #2 and really
• 28:20
  actually, more importantly, you don't address the fact you were
• 28:24
  demeaned. You don't make yourself whole
• 28:27
  when you go the personal excellence route.
• 28:31
  And that's my problem with using personal excellence as as a
• 28:33
  response. And that it could be kind of a,
• 28:37
  a bit of a trauma response. And then therefore, if I'm
• 28:39
  perfect and if I'm, you know what you're saying that it's
• 28:42
  making me think of the, the idea, you know, the kind of
• 28:44
  black excellence hashtag exactly, which I completely, I
• 28:48
  completely understand where it's coming from.
• 28:51
  But I do feel like we're almost now in a time where there's
• 28:53
  something a little bit unhelpful about it as well, because it
• 28:57
  creates this idea that if you're not excellent and it's come from
• 29:02
  a place of, of real being in a system of being demeaned and not
• 29:07
  being seen for the amazingness and stories not being told about
• 29:11
  all the excellence. So I get where it comes from,
• 29:13
  but I think that's an example of what you're talking.
• 29:15
  About I just, I just didn't think I should tell people how
• 29:19
  to cope with how they're mistreated like this.
• 29:22
  Is a theme on our show. I say something and this is like
• 29:27
  why are you telling them what to do?
• 29:31
  But if, if, if they need to cope with being mistreated, I'm not
• 29:35
  going to tell you how you need to cope with it.
• 29:38
  Like if if I'm. Not presenting options.
• 29:40
  What? What?
• 29:41
  But you only said what? What are the other options?
• 29:43
  I'll let Ben finish it up first, yeah.
• 29:45
  OK, and I actually do think it's like quite character building in
• 29:49
  a sense. Like it is quite character
• 29:52
  building, like what the fuck? What it makes it like, I, I
• 29:56
  don't think there's actually that much wrong with a, I don't
• 30:01
  want to call it a trauma response, but like a response to
• 30:04
  something negative happening to you for you to like use that as
• 30:07
  fuel, because what we can't get away from is something negative
• 30:11
  happening to you, right? So that's always going to
• 30:14
  happen. So I then don't see the problem
• 30:17
  with then using something that's always going to happen for
• 30:19
  something positive for yourself. I I don't see the problem with
• 30:24
  that A. 100% get what you're saying, and I agree you should
• 30:29
  use it for something positive. What I'm saying is that using
• 30:32
  personal excellence as the route you take is almost like a false
• 30:36
  positive. Personal ambition, you mean?
• 30:38
  Yeah, yeah, personal ambition. And in the workplace, I guess
• 30:43
  that means excelling in the workplace.
• 30:44
  Right. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
• 30:45
  I think excelling in the workplace is a false positive
• 30:49
  because what what what's happened is something has been
• 30:51
  taken from you, right? You have been made to feel less
• 30:55
  than whole and yourself worth worth has been attacked.
• 30:58
  Imagine someone took a chunk out of you, right?
• 31:00
  You have to fill the hole with money.
• 31:03
  But what's your OK? So what's your alternative
• 31:06
  though if someone experiences mistreatment and you're saying?
• 31:11
  They've taken that chunk. Don't don't use personal
• 31:13
  ambition to deal with that. What are the other options to
• 31:16
  you for for people to do? And sometimes people shrink, I
• 31:19
  guess they get the the mistreatment happens and they
• 31:22
  they shrink. Right, right.
• 31:23
  It's a bit of a like defence mechanism, so it doesn't happen
• 31:26
  again I think. I think there are various ways
• 31:29
  to go about it. I think on an individual level,
• 31:32
  if someone mistreats you, you can say something to that
• 31:37
  person. It's difficult to do in a
• 31:39
  workplace. I really do understand that, and
• 31:43
  I've been in a very lucky position where no one's been.
• 31:46
  Actually. KPMG was a corporate
• 31:48
  environment. I was there for like 7 years.
• 31:51
  People were like, they were microaggressions, but I said
• 31:54
  something. I was like, no, why are you
• 31:56
  talking to me like that? Right.
• 31:57
  And in the act of doing that, you, you might not change that
• 32:02
  person. You you probably won't.
• 32:04
  He won't. He'll do it to someone else.
• 32:05
  He'll do it to you again. Maybe, yeah.
• 32:08
  But you are telling yourself I'm the type of person who isn't
• 32:11
  going to stand for that. And you are doing something to
• 32:13
  mend the hole that has been taken from you.
• 32:15
  But why is that like, mutually exclusive from personal
• 32:19
  ambition? I think the point that you're
• 32:21
  making is that personal ambition doesn't actually fill that void.
• 32:25
  Yeah. And so.
• 32:26
  It make it can make you feel like you solve the void right?
• 32:29
  But until you actually go. Address the cause.
• 32:31
  It's not like necessary at all. You don't need to you.
• 32:33
  Could you could personally excel, but like, I don't think
• 32:36
  you're you're solving the problem and I think I see it in
• 32:39
  people, but like through personal excellence at work, I
• 32:44
  am filling that hole. I I'm I'm in the ascendancy
• 32:46
  here. I've solved the issue.
• 32:48
  I see it in people Is it happens in black people, like we know
• 32:52
  that black person who you know, gets violated but holds it
• 32:57
  especially in our corporate environments.
• 32:58
  It happens, right? Like Franz Fanon actually talks
• 33:02
  about this. He talks about the cathartic
• 33:03
  nature of violence right now. Franz Fanon was talking about
• 33:07
  colonialism. He was like in Richard of the
• 33:10
  Earth is a book that he wrote, he talks about colonised people
• 33:15
  using violence as a method to clean themselves.
• 33:18
  He's like violence cleanses one's person because what it
• 33:22
  does is it rids you of the inferior complex that comes from
• 33:25
  like taking something and not saying anything about it because
• 33:29
  the world beats you down, right? I think in your documentary, you
• 33:32
  spoke about the story of your hair being drilled into you from
• 33:35
  a from a child. Ever since a young girl, you're
• 33:38
  told something about your hair. And as much as we want to say,
• 33:40
  oh, it doesn't affect me, like it doesn't tell me who I am, of
• 33:43
  course it does. It beats you down.
• 33:44
  It takes those chunks from you and to me, standing up against
• 33:48
  even an individual or going to try to structurally change
• 33:52
  something, it mends you in some way.
• 33:54
  They're like heals that inner child that was hurt but.
• 33:58
  I think that doesn't have to be, I mean the friends fan and like
• 34:00
  violence. I feel like Buddhist philosophy
• 34:02
  would be the complete like would take a complete opposite stance
• 34:05
  on that. He is critical for that stuff.
• 34:08
  I think violence is not. It can be definitely cathartic,
• 34:12
  but I think you might still be left with with a lot after. 100%
• 34:17
  and I, I, I didn't actually clarify that.
• 34:19
  I'm not suggesting that we are violent, but I think you have to
• 34:23
  take a stance. You have to do something to
• 34:26
  reaffirm yourself worth like I don't know if you guys remember
• 34:30
  last year, right, 2024 summer, there were race writers, right?
• 34:35
  People were like. Yes, everyone was saying that
• 34:38
  it's dangerous to come to the UK.
• 34:40
  Yeah, A. 100% there were race riots and there was a trend on
• 34:42
  TikTok where immigrants would say POV, you're an immigrant and
• 34:46
  thus 10 years to go back home. And the POV is like them and
• 34:50
  like nurse or doctor overalls or something or they're a lawyer or
• 34:52
  something like that. And it's like there's
• 34:55
  mistreatment there and the you're using personal excellence
• 34:59
  like you are worthy because you're a doctor and you're using
• 35:04
  that to fill the hole instead of addressing the framing of the
• 35:07
  question. Those people who are race
• 35:10
  writing are saying go back to your country instead of
• 35:12
  addressing the racism there. You're almost playing the game
• 35:15
  on their terms, and you're accepting that you need to
• 35:18
  affirm who you are by being excellent.
• 35:21
  I see you're saying that. They're basically saying like
• 35:25
  we're being told we're back to our country, but look how great
• 35:27
  and valuable we are. We have all these skills and
• 35:29
  correct, which I think is a fair fairpoint and fair argument.
• 35:33
  I don't know if it is, I think there's something odd about that
• 35:36
  argument. It is No, I think you're right.
• 35:38
  I think it is just shouldn't be the only if you're, if you're
• 35:40
  kind of attacking something, if we imagine it as a kind of
• 35:44
  horrible block of hatred. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
• 35:48
  And you're attacking it from different angles.
• 35:50
  That's I think 1 angle. But and you're saying you've got
• 35:53
  to do other things to get at the really core issue that's going
• 35:57
  on. Well, because I think, I think
• 35:59
  the difference with what you're saying is they're asking for
• 36:04
  acceptance from that group now, correct.
• 36:06
  But I'm still screaming fuck you.
• 36:08
  Like I'm still screaming I don't like you and I don't.
• 36:12
  I do still use it as personal ambition.
• 36:14
  Like I don't think you have to be asking for the group to still
• 36:18
  accept you. I feel that that's what the
• 36:19
  problem is. Yeah.
• 36:20
  Yeah, that's. Why I was confused with the
• 36:22
  question because I was kind of like, like where's the problem
• 36:24
  with the personal ambition? But I think I understand what
• 36:26
  you're saying now. I feel like like we were talking
• 36:28
  about in there of more of a like that's a really individual
• 36:32
  example of someone, something bad happening to someone or Will
• 36:35
  Smith talks about it If he was cheated on when he was younger
• 36:39
  and decided I'm going to be the most famous successful actor in
• 36:43
  the world because of that, let's say mistreatment.
• 36:46
  And I feel like it's fair to say he didn't heal that hole.
• 36:49
  But like, I don't know, disrespect, like, do you see?
• 36:51
  It do you see how like he he might have thought he was doing
• 36:54
  that we had. To make that clear here.
• 36:56
  We'll we'll put that up. No, no, no, no.
• 36:59
  It's right. But like, but you see what I
• 37:01
  mean? That's what you're talking
• 37:02
  about, that it's not ultimately healing the whole of the
• 37:07
  mistreatment. Yeah.
• 37:08
  But I think that doesn't mean you shouldn't also have personal
• 37:10
  ambition. I think as with most things in
• 37:13
  life, it's both. And like, sure, have the
• 37:15
  personal ambition. If you want to have it, just
• 37:16
  know that it might not fill the hole.
• 37:18
  And you're going to have to do some work to also feel
• 37:21
  emotionally whole after mistreatment.
• 37:23
  And no matter what CEO billionaire title you have,
• 37:28
  that's not going to fill the hole.
• 37:30
  You you even have a nice. Life, it just helps you prove to
• 37:33
  yourself who you are. I think it's like there's not
• 37:36
  always Nuggets of motivation. Like you can't use capital for
• 37:40
  motivation. You can't always use like
• 37:42
  achievement for motivation. Sometimes you can use like this
• 37:45
  person said this. I don't believe this is true
• 37:47
  about me. I can prove it to myself that
• 37:50
  this is what I'm about, and I think it's valuable in that
• 37:53
  sense. I I, I do think like if you use
• 37:56
  it as a tool, you guys are talking about the same thing,
• 37:59
  right? You know, it's not going to like
• 38:00
  mend you, but you're just using it as a tool for temporary
• 38:03
  motivation. 100 percent, 100% get that.
• 38:06
  I'll say that on a run like I'll get to 4K and I'm trying to tap
• 38:10
  out. I'll ask myself like what you
• 38:13
  that guy that quits? Do you know what I mean?
• 38:16
  I'm gaslight myself. I'm not, I don't have like, I
• 38:19
  don't think I've got self esteem issues.
• 38:20
  Maybe I'll ask, but I'm not and I, you know what I mean?
• 38:26
  And if I did, I'd just need to accept that finishing the 5K is
• 38:30
  not going to mend me. You know what?
• 38:33
  I. Mean, but I think you certainly
• 38:35
  you could use it as a tool for motivation I do I do appreciate
• 38:37
  that I just like those Tik that TikTok trend really broke my
• 38:40
  heart because. Of the nurses in the.
• 38:42
  Yeah, yeah. And I'm looking at the comments
• 38:44
  and these are viral, viral black posts.
• 38:46
  And people are like, you go, go like.
• 38:49
  And I'm thinking like, and I don't think so.
• 38:54
  I'm thinking to myself, OK, like, what if she doesn't?
• 38:57
  What if she's not a nurse? What if she's not a doctor?
• 38:59
  Yes. Do you know what that says about
• 39:01
  that person? Then Who doesn't?
• 39:02
  Who's not economically productive?
• 39:04
  Yes, this is so tangent, but this is how I feel about.
• 39:08
  I mean, maybe you guys say these kind of things, but when people
• 39:10
  say like she's a queen or you're my queen, as if you can only be
• 39:16
  a queen as a woman to be treated well, There's this idea that
• 39:19
  like excellent or like you're saying like nurse or lawyer or
• 39:22
  she's a queen. Like anyone should be able to be
• 39:25
  treated well, even if they're not excellent on a lawyer level
• 39:29
  or nurse level. But also that those aren't the
• 39:31
  only versions of being excellent people could be.
• 39:33
  You just have value being yourself, like being a human.
• 39:36
  And I think, I think sometimes that gets lost.
• 39:40
  That's, that's I guess that's my point.
• 39:41
  It's a good point. It's a fair point.
• 39:42
  It's a very fair point. I feel like you would like
• 39:45
  Gabble Do you know Gabble Mattei?
• 39:47
  Yeah, yeah, yeah. I feel like you'd like a lot of
• 39:48
  his work. And he's.
• 39:51
  It's really good and his books are also amazing about the
• 39:55
  absolute necessity for trauma responses and how they
• 39:58
  absolutely make sense at the time because they're good for
• 40:00
  our survival. But they're especially like
• 40:02
  around childhood. And then as you get older, how
• 40:05
  to look at is that still serving you?
• 40:07
  And how to break that apart? Yeah, exactly.
• 40:09
  Yeah, yeah, 100%. On to the next segment.
• 40:16
  After many years of work, you get a major opportunity in your
• 40:19
  industry. But you know you weren't picked
• 40:21
  just solely because of your talent.
• 40:22
  It was partly because you fit what they wanted to show in the
• 40:25
  world right now. Meanwhile, you've seen others
• 40:27
  just as good, maybe better pushed aside because they don't
• 40:30
  fit the image or because they spoke up.
• 40:33
  You know if you stay silent, you can keep rising.
• 40:36
  If you speak, you'll risk being replaced before you even start.
• 40:40
  Do you take your chance and play the game or call it out and risk
• 40:43
  losing everything you work for? I struggled with this question
• 40:47
  because there's certain parts of it where I think I know what I
• 40:49
  would want to say. And then as it develops, I'm
• 40:51
  like like the initial part about the idea of someone getting a
• 40:55
  job, not just because of their talent.
• 40:57
  I think there's there's nothing wrong with that.
• 40:58
  That happens all the time. Sometimes you hire the slightly
• 41:02
  less talented person because they're a really nice person
• 41:04
  compared to the dickhead who's really talented.
• 41:07
  It's the idea that like people are trying to speak up within
• 41:10
  this situational system and they're getting like shut down.
• 41:14
  I feel like I need more context. I I need like a fleshed out
• 41:18
  scenario. So let's say for example, I
• 41:21
  don't know exactly how it works, but a producer watches your
• 41:23
  documentary. Don't like that, Don't like
• 41:26
  that. What's she trying to say about
• 41:28
  like the girls in in the make up room or whatever?
• 41:32
  So you're pushed to one side, but your friend in a similar
• 41:36
  position to you gets the role. She knows that you were pushed
• 41:39
  aside. How would you feel about her
• 41:42
  taking that role with that same producer I.
• 41:44
  Mean you've got to do what you've got to do really like I'm
• 41:46
  honestly I. You wouldn't have thought all
• 41:48
  type of way about that. No, of course.
• 41:50
  Like if I explicitly knew that they didn't want to work with me
• 41:54
  because I wanted to speak about hair equality on set, that was
• 41:58
  my choice to do that. That was my choice to speak
• 42:00
  about that. And if someone else wants to
• 42:02
  take that job, I'd be firm with that.
• 42:05
  Wouldn't you? Yeah, I would.
• 42:07
  You're like fairly close friend who who you speak you spoke to
• 42:11
  when you got rejected and like. So I called them and they're
• 42:13
  like, I didn't get this role because they think I'm too much
• 42:16
  of A like stir, you know, I stir shit up do.
• 42:18
  You stir the port a little bit and then not obedient, and then
• 42:24
  and then a month later. I would, I would she?
• 42:27
  Calls you, I'd say. Take the job.
• 42:28
  I'd say take the job. Really.
• 42:30
  Yeah, I'd say take the job because you're a better person
• 42:33
  because I think everyone not taking the job doesn't change
• 42:36
  the situation about her on set. I know, but that's a very
• 42:39
  specific example. But but I don't, I think it
• 42:42
  doesn't. I think there are situations
• 42:43
  where like. You'd want her to call it out.
• 42:46
  Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'd want her to call it out for
• 42:48
  sure. I just think you could take the
• 42:50
  job and still. So like that was like us, you
• 42:53
  would want me to call it out, You wouldn't want me to take the
• 42:55
  job. If I'd made a whole documentary
• 42:58
  about this issue, I'd spoken at length about this issue and how
• 43:02
  it's hurt me and you just took it, That's mad bro.
• 43:08
  The thing is though, I think we've got to think of another,
• 43:11
  but we've got to think of another example because the the
• 43:13
  issue of hair quality, it's like a system wide thing.
• 43:16
  So I don't feel like anyone particular job is is going to.
• 43:20
  No, but you the the needle has to move at some point, right?
• 43:22
  Yeah, but I think that that needle doesn't get moved by
• 43:25
  people not taking jobs. I think that needle gets moved
• 43:28
  by a whole bunch of stuff in which you can watch the
• 43:32
  documentary on the Sky documentaries and Now TV.
• 43:36
  But yeah, like I think that's a separate thing.
• 43:38
  But I think I feel like this goes back to our other question
• 43:41
  about surviving and thriving in a certain situation.
• 43:44
  Because I think one could take the stance that you could take
• 43:47
  the job and effect change and that might be OK.
• 43:54
  As in that get in and try and affect change from the inside,
• 43:56
  yeah? Yeah, I think that's a
• 43:58
  legitimate option. I know some people don't think
• 44:01
  that's possible and they think you have to burn, burn a
• 44:03
  situation down and rebuild. But I do think change can also
• 44:07
  be created from the inside. But I think if you're saying
• 44:10
  it's a systemic problem, surely you have to burn down the
• 44:15
  system. Like you said, it's systemic
• 44:18
  like it's not. It means revolution you took.
• 44:21
  Revolution. You take that, that, that white
• 44:25
  man who's a producer, you take him out, you put another one in.
• 44:28
  It's the same thing. So what would you say to this
• 44:30
  then this scenario? What?
• 44:32
  Would you say man? You got to call it out, man.
• 44:37
  Just because I thought you would actually say you got to call it
• 44:39
  out, Let me not lie. But I'm not I'm.
• 44:42
  Not saying I wouldn't, I didn't say call it out.
• 44:43
  I'm not saying I wouldn't say call it out.
• 44:45
  I just, I'm very much a very much like a, it depends on the
• 44:48
  situation like that you, I think you can still call it out and
• 44:51
  take the job is what I'm saying. Yeah, I think, I think that's a
• 44:54
  violent. Yeah.
• 44:55
  But in the course, of course. That's probably what I would do.
• 44:57
  Yeah. Yeah, I would.
• 44:59
  I. Think that's.
• 45:00
  My position I'd have to like I would struggle, I struggle to
• 45:04
  participate properly if I didn't call it out if I want to see
• 45:06
  you, yeah, but I'd take your money too.
• 45:08
  Like what would you do to? I think for the scenario, Ben,
• 45:15
  I'm tempted to take the middle Rd.
• 45:17
  I like to like go and take the opportunity, but speak out about
• 45:22
  it. And it kind of goes back to the
• 45:24
  question one, like, can you exist within the system but also
• 45:28
  change it? And what does that mean about
• 45:31
  your moral complicity with that system?
• 45:33
  And I think if you can actually genuinely affect change from the
• 45:37
  inside, there are certain scenarios and certain systems.
• 45:39
  Like I said, the police, you can't tell me that.
• 45:43
  You can't tell me no fed is enacting positive social change.
• 45:46
  I'm sorry, I'm just not going to hear it.
• 45:48
  Really. You think that's not possible?
• 45:50
  It must be. It must because there's people
• 45:52
  in there who really think that they are in it to impact the
• 45:56
  community and protect and theft. They are wrong.
• 46:00
  You're essentially saying they do more harm than good.
• 46:01
  Even if they do those things, they do more harm than good by
• 46:03
  being part of the police. But I do think that, you know,
• 46:07
  in this scenario, I think she can impact change.
• 46:10
  And if she can't, she shouldn't. Then then yeah, exactly.
• 46:12
  I think that's where I like. I think that's where I.
• 46:16
  Go as far to say even if she can't, as long as she does it.
• 46:19
  Run it up. Yeah, like, as long as she
• 46:21
  challenges it, like, that's good enough.
• 46:23
  Like, you can't always guarantee that you're only a small person,
• 46:26
  but what you can do yourself and what you can control is to
• 46:29
  critique and to challenge this. And if you do your part, whether
• 46:33
  you genuinely change it or not, that's another problem.
• 46:35
  But you you've done your part of it.
• 46:37
  Yes. Cool.
• 46:38
  Thank you for joining us. I hope you enjoyed it.
• 46:41
  Did you? I loved it.
• 46:42
  Thanks for having me. It was a pleasure having.
• 46:46
  You. Thank you.
• 46:47
  Take care. See you soon, See.
• 46:48
  You next week. No rush whatsoever, let me get
• 47:02
  my notes up. Should I go cracking?
• 47:05
  Yeah, let's go. Go on.
• 47:07
  Should we just do it? It's all right.
• 47:08
  I know you're thinking about my time and it's OK.
• 47:09
  Go on. OK, cool.
• 47:12
  I'll be. Yeah.
• 47:13
  Should get rid of them. Yeah.
• 47:15
  OK. How do you do it before they
• 47:18
  stop? Stop moving.
• 47:21
  I enjoyed that a lot. That was so much fun.
• 47:23
  Yeah, that's good. I could talk to you guys for
• 47:25
  hours.