Kino Flex Lies To Defend Asmongold

Added: 2026-06-03

[00:00:00]You know what I'm saying? Drop a like, leave a comment, let me know you're here. We going to have fun tonight.

[00:00:07][music] So, the reason I'm making this video is because what I've been noticing in this space with media and social media and people with commentary channels or just review channels seem to have some strong interest in pretending as if black people are inherently violent while trying to not openly admit that they think they're inherently violent. And with that, we've had people like Asmin Gold, Techone, and a lot of people on the right with right-leaning ideologies saying that, you know, treading the line of black people being violent is because they're violent. It's honestly just become a [ __ ] way of saying that race is real, but we can't say that because we know it's an indefensible argument.

[00:00:55]So, we're just going to tread the line of discrediting poverty having a strong correlation with crime and race realism.

[00:01:02]Insert Kenoflex. Kenoflex is somebody that strongly aligns with, I guess, Asmin Gold's perspective on this and who also has a strong distaste for the Birdman. Both of which I can give two shits about. But Kino decided to parrot what Asmin Gold was saying in his back and forth exchange with the Birdman. And I found this extremely long post he made on his YouTube channel quite egregious.

[00:01:26]I don't have a real relationship with Kino, but we have conversed here and there. we've reacted to one another's content and I did reach out to him to have a debate on this topic and he you know respectfully declined and this isn't to say that he's scared or anything like that. I'll show you what he said in the screen right here and he just said he doesn't have the time which is perfectly fine and there's no ill will and I don't think he's running or anything of the sort. I get it as a content creator you have content you want to focus on and if you don't do debate content you may not want to. He then proceeded to say that I could react to it on his stream and I declined. But, you know, I kind of had a change of heart and instead of reacting in real time in a stream, I felt like it would make more sense to do a video to thoroughly debunk all of the points he made in this idiotic post. And here we go. As some of you have heard and wanted me to comment on, Bird Brain is back to getting his feathers plugged by Asmin TV for choosing to die on the hill of both crime denial and institutional racism.

[00:02:25]His video isn't related to what I like to focus on with this channel, but his arguments are so facious that I felt the need to respond to him through a post for being such an idiot, repeating myths that have been refuted for years at this point.

[00:02:39][music] Poverty equals crime. Starting off, he misrepresents the 1350 statistic, which he has also done in the past. In America, is not correct to say that black people commit more than half of all crimes. It is, however, correct to say that black people commit more than half of all violent crimes. This is because black people are 13% of the population, yet will in any given year will commit 46 to 62% of the homicides in the United States of America. It is not racist to say this because all you're doing is being factual about crime. This is not to say that you can't use this fact to justify racism. Some wignat going blacks commit 1350. So therefore, we should deport them all to Africa is someone who can be disregarded. But honestly, following criminal trends and looking for ways to reduce crime is the entire point of both policing and criminal justice.

[00:03:30]>> First of all, I don't even know where this poverty equals crime heading subject even came from. Kino, if you could point to me at any point in the video with the exact timestamp where Birdman argued that poverty equals crime, please point that out because we can talk about it because nobody between me, him, or anybody else that has this conversation is going to say that poverty equals crime. As a matter of fact, he said the exact opposite of it.

[00:03:56]Here it is. Non-white country, Japan, experiences higher crime rates when poverty and unemployment rates rise, as shown in this study. Moving slightly west, South Korea is experiencing what they call a silver crime wave, where the rise of poverty in its aging population has seen a commensurate rise in crime.

[00:04:14]All of this does not mean poverty mechanically causes every individual to commit crime, nor does every poor community become highly violent. But the broader statistical relationship between resource deprivation and crime appears repeatedly across continents and populations. This is why many scholars argue that racial disparities and crime are better understood through the lens of concentrated poverty, inequality, historical segregation, and access to opportunity rather than race itself.

[00:04:43]Second off, we're not even going to go into this 1350 crap. I don't even remember that being discussed really in the video, but even if it was, we already understand that you guys don't understand that statistic and use it to try to say black people are inherently violent without saying that black people are inherently violent. Again, I don't know how many times I'm probably going to have to say this in a video. This is about why. This isn't about what individuals are responsible for the crimes that they commit. Yet, crime apologists like Burr Brain argue that society as a whole actively contributes to them committing crimes. Therefore, we should address underlying problems in society to properly reduce the amount of bad individual choices, specifically giving them more material wealth or solving disproportionate group inequalities, which would in turn lead to them committing less crimes. I don't know where this whole crime apologist thing came from because nobody is an apologist for crime and nor did anybody deny that individuals are responsible for crimes. He said the same himself.

[00:05:38]Poverty does not create crime. It just correlates and contributes to it.

[00:05:43]>> I reject this idea because I acknowledge the fact that you can be poor and not commit crimes in order to live. We know this is the case because historically there were periods of time where we had less income inequality but higher rates of crime. Look at the 1950s compared to the 1960s where black people were poor in the 50s as well as dealing with openly racist policies. Yet despite those factors, the homicide rate for black people was objectively lower than it was in later decades with all sorts of welfare in place thanks to President Lyndon B. Johnson's war on poverty. So if you're pointing to racism or poverty, then none of those appear to be a cause.

[00:06:18]If income inequality is causing the crime, then why does crime not correlate with it? It's almost as if Burbrain is committing the classic mistake of thinking correlation equals causation.

[00:06:28]>> It's almost as if you keep trying to break apart each one of his points because you can't contend with them in tandem. All of the factors that he listed previously, which there were four of contribute to crime, concentrated poverty, inequality, historical segregation, and access to opportunity rather than race itself. Not one thing individually will be the cause of crime, especially in a given environment or society. I also don't think you understand what you're saying. Just because there was more racial injustice in the ' 50s, therefore there wasn't as much crime. Crime has gone down significantly over time period. We had a huge spike in the '90s due to the drug epidemic, the crack epidemic, and access to guns. Of course, there was a big spike in violent crime. And over time as we try to remedy those problems, crime has significantly gone down year by year, decade by decade, this is a nonpoint. If anything, it further proves our point because over time, yes, black people has gained more equality, has gained more opportunity, has gained more education, has come out of poverty even more. But that doesn't mean we aren't still disproportionately affected by it.

[00:07:37]And the fact that you see us trending upward in all of these things, it obviously means that since we're going in the right direction, we're doing better as a whole. So, if you can acknowledge all of these things are true, wouldn't that tell you that if we got to the root of what caused all of this and tried to reverse it or repair it, then we will probably have better outcomes as a whole. But let's pretend that Burrang actually is correct about poverty causing crime and not the other way around with crime causing poverty because his solution is still completely idiotic. Burrang is committing the underlying cause fallacy. The idea that the most efficient way to address a problem is to look for and fix that underlying cause.

[00:08:17]>> At no point in this video was there a solution proposed. Let's continue.

[00:08:22]>> The idea that we must address either poverty or income inequality to stop crime instead of crime itself is ridiculous. Because we already know the simple solution to crime is being less tolerant of it by having stricter punishments and actually holding the criminals accountable for their actions.

[00:08:36]If we focus on arresting abstract concepts such as poverty and income inequality, we are letting violent criminals run rampant and hurt innocent people who statistically are also the same people supposedly being helped. If you can incarcerate and prevent people from committing homicides with proper policing and sentencing, then you don't have to do all this wealth distribution nonsense. Nobody said anything about either addressing poverty or income inequality. They're both problems that we should aim to fix regardless of who is affecting. And you're making this up about harsher punishments leads to less crime. The only evidence we have of that is the complete opposite. There's already a study on this from the National Institute of Justice. In 2016, they've done a study about the five things about deterrence. Now, none of this is completely solidified as gospel, but is pretty damn accurate according to what we have known and learned over time. The five things they point out about crime deterrence that either confirm what causes it or what actually is a deterrent is the certainty of being caught is vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment. Sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison isn't a very effective way to deter crime. Police deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught and punished. Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime. And there is no proof that the death penalty deters criminals.

[00:09:58]I don't know why you thought that this was just a claim you could make and not have any way to back it up or prove it.

[00:10:04]I think this is just a feeling you have or just agreeing with Charlie Kirk because he said it. But we've already been understood that deterrence for crime is not just about stricter punishments. If that were the case, how could a place like CCOT even exist today?

[00:10:19]>> Soft on crime approach.

[00:10:21]>> This was really strange because nobody said anything about being soft on crime.

[00:10:25]So, we're just going to skip this paragraph entirely because it's a waste of time.

[00:10:29]>> Red lining. Most of you have heard this before, but to keep it brief, the myth surrounding redlinining was that it was an openly racist policy that targeted black people specifically to deny them loans. Redlinining was never based around race, as it included every race, but the majority was poor white people.

[00:10:44]What it did was map areas safe to invest in as well as areas not safe to invest in because of poor pre-existing conditions such as crime. Data actually shows that black ownership increased faster than white people during this time. The disparities between groups we see are now primarily due to different spending habits and lifestyle choices.

[00:11:02]It's the same thing as the heavily debunked gender wage gap where if you want to make more money then make better personal decisions. I don't even understand why he's saying that this is a myth and saying that redlinining is not primarily focused on African-Americans and it wasn't openly racist. Like I don't even know what timeline we're in at this point. Let's use your daddy's source Grock. If you don't want to go by Grock, let's look at Gemini. Let's look at ChatGpt. It doesn't matter. All of them say it. Any source that's reliable will say it. This is the I think the most baffling part of this entire video to say that redlinining was not based on African-Americans being closed out of certain neighborhoods. And on top of that, of course, black people increased their wealth over time because only way they could go is up. If things were bad for them and they were at the bottom of the barrel, the only thing they could do is improve their circumstances, which they did, and which is what we continue to do to this day. So to pretend otherwise is some [ __ ] Black people have always been making better decisions, which is why our circumstances has only increased over time. The only problem now is that you guys are pretending as if the past didn't happen and we should ignore it and move on when it's still affecting us to this day. You don't deal with these problems in the same capacity as black African-Americans do. And so therefore, you just want to pretend like it's our race that's the difference instead of our circumstances.

[00:12:21]>> Affirmative action is not racist.

[00:12:23]Murbrain's response to crime is to offer the black community all sorts of advantages as some sort of bribe which includes affirmative action cdi hiring.

[00:12:32]His rebuttal to Asmin Gold is that not only are black people entitled to the positions given to them by affirmative action instead of receiving them by merit but also that it isn't pro black enough citing white women being the biggest beneficiaries of DEI hiring.

[00:12:46]Once again not understanding per capita considering they are a much bigger percentage of the population. If 30% of the United States population is made up of white women and 13% of the population is made up of black people while having a policy in place that benefits all of them equally, you'll naturally end up with the white women being roughly three times higher than black people as a candidate pool. Just because white women are benefiting doesn't mean black people aren't benefiting too.

[00:13:11]>> I think it's interesting that he chose to use the word bribe because this is [ __ ] weird. Who who is being bribed by who? Black people being bribed by what? The government of America to do what for them? This is the use of the word bribe is just utterly absurd. DEI is not to give people positions that do not have merit. It is to let people that have been historically disenfranchised to have a fighting chance that also has the merit. I don't know how many times we have to explain this, but that's what it is. This is exactly why every plane crash that's happened in America, Charlie Kirk, has been by a white pilot and not a black one. And again, the point of him talking about this in the first place is to show that affirmative action is not racist in its implementation. Whatever word you want to attribute to it is not racist, especially when you come to find out that it mostly benefited white women.

[00:14:02]Therefore, it is not racist because what race is being discriminated against? It is not white men because as he said, white men that are disabled also benefit from this which they disproportionately represent. It's not racist. I don't know why he's even trying to argue this point in the first place because on its face it cannot be deemed racist. But this argument from Bird Brand also falls apart as it assumes that because white women are benefiting then it doesn't mean white men aren't being discriminated against. The logic of DEI being discriminatory is still perfectly sound as there can be different types of discrimination present depending on the candidate the white male candidate is up against. If the white male candidate is up against an unqualified black candidate, the black candidate would take precedent because of his race, which would be racial discrimination.

[00:14:47]But if the white male candidate is up against a candidate who was an unqualified white woman, then the white woman candidate would take precedent over the white male candidate for her sex, which would be sex-based discrimination. Both are instances of discrimination, but in two distinct categories. If there was a racist hiring policy in in place that gave unqualified white male candidates president overqualified black male candidates, we would acknowledge that as racist and it wouldn't stop being racist if the qualified black male candidate took president over a more qualified white female candidate for not being a man because there is still racial discrimination present.

[00:15:22]>> Yes, black people benefit, but again, this is coming from a place of privilege. White men don't need to request to be in any space. They don't need any help. They don't need any equity. This is exactly why it's been implemented. And I think this is a bias that comes from white men and men in in particular, but especially white men because white men are the default, the standard, and the norm. I, as a man, understand that I have privilege and I don't need a leg up in a lot of aspects in life and society. This is also something that Birdman pointed out.

[00:15:52]People that have had freedom and opportunity feel like they're losing something when others get the same playing field. It makes absolutely no sense. And despite knowing that the process itself is racist thanks to the 2023 SCODS case students for fair admissions versus Harvard ruling acknowledging that it violated the 14th amendment. Burbé has no response to other than calling it ridiculous without explaining how six out of the nine justices had the incorrect ruling. He just complains about black institutional advantages being affected when the entire argument in the first place is that they are supposed to be there at all due to them being discriminatory.

[00:16:27]This is really weird because whether you agree with it or not, he explicitly said why he disagreed with Fair Admissions versus Harvard. He said it and these rulings almost always come at the expense of black Americans. Its ruling in students v Harvard was a joke because the prosecution's claim hinged on the idea that American institutions like Harvard already operate on a level playing field, which we know they don't.

[00:16:54]At Harvard specifically, there are legacy admissions, donor preferences, networking advantages, and wealth inheritance that disproportionately benefit white students. Somehow, the group suing Harvard ignored all of that to focus on the 18% of the class of 2027 who were black, 18%.

[00:17:12]This number decreased to 14% after the Supreme Court's ruling. The Asian cohort went from 37% to 37%. literally zero change to them, but a 4% drop in black student admission, which if you haven't been paying attention, is the [ __ ] goal.

[00:17:32]The group that sued Harvard, Students for Fair Admissions, headed by this guy, Edward Blum, who has dedicated his entire career to dismantling progress in racial equality and specifically black representation. Bush versus Vera, a Supreme Court case against redistricting in Texas that sought to increase racial minority representation in Congress.

[00:17:54]Fiser versus University of Texas, another Supreme Court case regarding affirmative action in a college. Shelby County versus Holder, a Supreme Court case concerning preclarance or the right of the federal government to approve of voting law changes of certain states that had a history of racial discrimination, i.e. the South. This one was important because it resulted in a landmark decision that allowed historically racially discriminant states in the South to [ __ ] with voter ID laws, removing the most effective protection against racial voter suppression. Doesn't that sound familiar?

[00:18:30]>> Voter ID laws are racist. If you can't get a valid ID to vote, then frankly, you shouldn't be voting at all.

[00:18:36]Honestly, I think Burbres's argument that black people can't get IDs is more racist than anyone he has responded to.

[00:18:42]That's all I really care to respond to.

[00:18:44]It seems that Burberry wants to transition his content to being Hassan [ __ ] reaction slop so he can be the next Kaya and I wish him the best of luck. He needs a replacement for Noah the otter after all. Now this is just actual willful ignorance. First of all, Birdman never explicitly said ver ID laws are racist. Does it have racism entailed in it? Sometimes yes. North Carolina NAACP versus McCroy clearly lays out what happens if we let legislation pass that specifically targets black people and it doesn't have to explicitly say so. After the Supreme Court weakened the voters's right act in 2013, North Carolina Governor Pat McRy signed a sweeping election law that imposed strict photo ID requirements, reduced early voting days, eliminated same day registration, ended pre-registration for teenagers, and stopped counting certain outof precinct ballots. Civil rights groups argued the law was designed to suppress black voters because black communities disproportionately use many of those voting methods. In 2016, a federal appeals court struck down major parts of the law, saying lawmakers targeted African-Americans with almost surgical precision. The court pointed to evidence that legislators requested racial voting data before removing the exact voting practices black voters relied on most.

[00:20:01]The case became one of the most cited modern examples in debates over voter suppression and racial discrimination in election laws. So yes, Kino, voter ID laws can potentially be racist, but the problem with this one in particular, like the Save Act, it's not targeting voter fraud, because voter fraud isn't an actual problem we have in the US. If Republicans wanted to say, "Let's have voter IDs," and just supplied them to the public, 18 and up, registered to vote, then you get it. But no, I find it funny that the target is seems to be women and minorities. Women typically have troubles with getting certain types of ID when they change their names to get married. And minorities are usually the ones impoverished, meaning they don't have the time or money or the resources to get something like a passport or a real ID or whatever it is that they need. It's not because they can't find the DMV or don't know how to register to vote or can't get there. It is a time and money problem. This is subversively a pole tax. And if you think otherwise, I would love to have that conversation with you. At the end of the day, Kino, I know that you don't like the Birdman, but that doesn't mean you have to make it a mission to always oppose everything that he comes out with and says. I disagree with plenty of content creators, but that doesn't mean everything they do or say is in the wrong. This was a post you could have just left alone because all you did was lie, misrepresent, and not understand anything that you were talking about.

[00:21:26]But again, the door is still open if you want to have a conversation about any of these topics. I did decide to make a video, although I told you I wasn't at first because it was really weighing on me because you were just so adamant about responding to something and just literally said the same [ __ ] that Asmin said with no proof to back it up whatsoever. But if you made it to this point in the video, man, make sure you leave a like, comment, sub. If not one, then all three and I'mma catch y'all in the next one. Peace.

[00:21:51][music] Find my slang. Give up or quit. N [singing] my plan. Giving blueprints out like I was Bob [music] the Builder.