Darren Brown's "sacrifice" makes a strange assumption at it's core, first it assumes that belief in X implies belief in Y, and then then someone who was introduced as believing in X is shown to not believe in Y, he concludes that therefore they do not believe in X anymore, instead of making the simpler assumption, that X does not necessarily correlate with Y. Why would a white supremacist or white nationalist not risk their lives to save the life of a member of another race? why would this act imply that they are not white supremacist or white nationalist? It's totally viable that someone who thinks they are superior to someone else, is also able to think that same person should have the best life and treatment possible. We have a precedent, it's called "the disabled", disabled means lacking in a level of capability that most people possess, it means by definition, inferiority in some important capacity, not a vague inferiority, but a tangible and objective one. So obviously, every abled person despises the disabled and wants them all to suffer and die, right? Wrong, they go out not their way to help these people, so continuing down Darren Brown's logic, most people must not actually believe that the disabled are disabled, no, the means by which the abled care for the disabled explicitly recognize that these people have some inferiority to the abled, in an important aspect, their are "charities for the disabled" for fuck's sake, the definition of "disabled", may I remind you, is in the existence of some important area of inferiority that sets them apart as a group front the abled. Another example, is animal rights, most people in the animal rights movement recognize that animals aren't as smart as human beings, you'd think this would mean that they hate animals, but the don't, in fact, they will use their inferiority as a talking point for why humans need to be careful about the harm they do to animals, since animals are at greater risk because they aren't as smart as humans. Surely either of these examples have Darren Brown scratching his head. But it doesn't, because it makes perfect sense, that you can both consider yourself superior, but also want nothing but the best to your inferiors. the only place he fails to apply this logic, is when the same type of belief is done with respect to race, but it shouldn't. "yes, I believe white people are superior" "no, I do not want non-white people to suffer, or die, or experience misfortune if I can manage it" "no, this does not mean that statement A is not true of me" White nationalism is a similar situation, just because you don't want to live with someone doesn't mean you want them dead or dispossessed. I find you on the street, I see you hurt, I get help and try to tend to you as best I can, I may even check up on you after you had been rescued, none of this implies I want to live with you, or spend the rest of my life around you. A woman see's a fat man at a bar, he wants to sleep with her, she refuses his advances, she doesn't want the guy to suffer or die, she wishes him the best, she just doesn't want to associate with him in some specific way. You decide not to give a job to an applicant, you see him as a liability if employed by the company, you hire someone else instead because they better fit your standards for who should get the position, later on you see the same guy tat you rejected about to jump off a bridge, and you stop him from falling, does that mean you suddenly want him to have the job? no, it means that you both do not want him in the position, AND do not want him dead. Why would people assume a white supremacist or a white nationalist wants to see people of other races suffer or die or otherwise befall as terrible fate? why would someone going out of their way to help someone who is of another race from a terrible situation imply that they are not white supremacist or white nationalist anymore? Because the thinking goes like the above: I assume that because you are of the opinion X that you are also of the opinion Y, sometime later, I learn you are not of the opinion Y, I conclude that therefore you are not of the opinion X. No, he is till of opinion X, but he was never of opinion Y, the two do not go together all the time. Just because you assume people who like strawberry sundaes also like pineapple pizzas, and then you meet someone who is introduced as liking strawberry sundaes, who later on expresses a dislike of pineapple pizzas, you cannot conclude that therefore he no longer likes strawberry sundaes. The better assumption is that you can like strawberry sundaes without liking pineapple pizzas. someone who wants brown people to not live with him, is someone who does not want brown people to live with him, it's not someone who wants to see brown people murdered, that is just an assumption you made by yourself. someone who thinks blacks have lower IQ on aggregate compared to whites, is one who thinks the preceding statement is true, it does not mean that he wants them kept as slaves, that is your connection, not his. I know for a fact that white supremaicsts and white nationalists would typically be willing to put their neck out for someone in need, regardless of their race. But that is becuase I've spoken to white nationalists and white supremacists. Do they hate people of other races? well, anyone who hears their statemnt calls the statements hateful, so I guess thhey do, but that doesn't mean they have some hostility or dislike to those of other races. i know the reply is "but that;s the definition of hatred", and I hear that. But that just means your language is sloppy. This is the "middle world" where things aren;t exactly fitting into the categories you assume things fall into, the idea of a sense of superiority is not accompanied by hatred is unique only in the context of race, with respesct to any other field of difference, you might expect that one does not folow from the other, yet here you cannot mke that leap, because of the sets you assume things must fall into. Similarly, that refusal to associate in one way or another, does not imply hatred is in most cases easily accepted, but in this specific case, where it involves a racial component, you have trouble making the assumption you normally would. There is a reason why even the most obvious seeming assumption must be questioned, and you should assume conservatively, that when someone says something, they imply just that. Here's another example of this failing: racism. A racist doesn't always hate people of the race he is racist towards, in most cases where someone is called a racist, they explicitly do not hate that group of people, but are of some opinion or behavior or attitude that the other race finds distasteful. If "everyone should play by the same rules" is racism, and later on you find the person saying that going out of the way to help some african-american down on his luck, purely out of human kindness, it does not mean he is not racist against african americans, it just means that his racism is not what you assumed it would be. If he says "people should stop talking about the past, it's divisive" but turns out to also be someone that puts himself on the line to defend a falsely accused hispanic guy in court, this isn't a contradiction, he's racist against hispanics, AND he also supports hispanics rights to not be treated unfairly by the law (regardless of whether the miscarriage of justice was at all to do with his race). So, what have we learned? that the popular conception of racism, white nationalism, and white supremacy is not always correct. At the very least it is possible for all, three to not only not be okay with violence against these groups, but also be in favor of these groups having the best lives they can, while at the same time holding the beliefs that define them as what they are. so what about those racists, white supremacists, and white nationalists who DO want other races to be killed, or evicted, or enslaved, or placed into second class status, or otherwise offended against? That's not up to me to help you with, maybe they deserve titles of their own, in white nationalist white supremacist and racist circles, thee exists the derogatory title "wignat" or "hollywood nazi" that serves to describe these types, there is also the term "seigefags", or "glow in the dark CIA niggers" for the more profane imageboard types, "edgelords" is another popular term, as is "red pill rage", which is a description for it as a phase that is expected to pass eventually. Take whatever you wish as your descriptor of these types. The problem is that the non-violent and non-hateful guys aren't popular in the media, to see someone for whom "the aggregate differences between the races in intelligence is the reason for the aggregate differences in their historical disparity in successfulness" means and implies only that it says, is upsetting, the idea that this same guy means it when he says he doesn't hate the other races he talks about, is something that for most is absurd, especially in fiction, but in reality it's actually not that uncommon a position to take. Even in fiction, that genius hero who rightfully thinks he's smarter than most others, is willing to stick his neck out for those who he perceives to be inferior on an intellectual basis, and no one thinks that it's a weird thing for him to do. Only when it's not a difference between individuals, or any other groupings, but between the particular of racial groups, does belief in superiority imply dislike or hostility. in the media, someone who says "I don't think we should allow more of your race into our country" means exactly that, is not going to fly too much with audiences, who expect it to be accompanied by him turning out to be someone who is okay with a car running that guy he was speaking to down. To see him save the guy from the car would be seen as a proof of ideological transformation or lack of authenticity, not as something that is, in fact, compatible. but in reality, it's actually pretty likely for someone to hold to both I don't want more of your people group to live with me" and "but I want you to live well". Again, in fiction this isn't a big discrepancy in other contexts, if you deny access to a school for wizards on the basis that they are not gifted with magic, it is not seen as conflicting when the same individuals work to protect the powerless from wizards who want to kill them. It's recognizing that even though they want to be not associated together in the same place, they are also not okay with any sort of horrible fate befalling them. TL;DR: Even though there are a lot of criticisms of the show, The best criticism of the show "sacrifice" is that it's very premise is based on a logical fallacy, That because you assume that X implies Y, that therefore "not Y" implies "not X", when in fact that your assumption of "X = Y" was incorrect to begin with. this is unintentionally hilarious on a show that is making a statement on the issues with prejudice.