How McWhorter keyed in on anti-racism being religion blew my mind — which is why I showcased it in I Don’t Do Slogans — a piece Loury called “brilliant” and was “honored by.”
It’s a mighty fine day when you wake up to find such high praise from a man of his caliber.
I first wrote about Glenn in the excerpt below:
I’m not an authority on race relations, but I have a knack for knowing what’s not working and why. My area of “why” is in human behavior — not the answers to how all these things can be fixed.
There are people who have the answers (or ideas that could get us there with the cooperation and courage to foster them).
The same can be said for most issues in America. So my aim is to clear the clutter for honest debate — especially for people who really know their stuff.
Like this guy, Glenn Loury . . .
“It was time to take stock”
We stood there in the summer of 1984. . . . Two decades had passed since the heyday of the civil rights achievements of the 1960s. It was time to take stock. Where have we blacks gotten ourselves to? I asked . . .
High up in the speech throwing down the gauntlet came my signature declaration, the Civil Rights Movement is over, I asserted.
I claimed that the problems of the lower classes of African American society plagued by poverty and joblessness were, at the end of the day, not remediable by the means which had been so effective in the 1960s of protest and petitioning for fair treatment.
What we now faced, I suggested, was a new American dilemma. The formulation I ultimately settled on contrasted an enemy without, that would be white racism, with an enemy within — black society.
“The Civil Rights Movement is over” — in 1984!
That — took guts!
Alas, that it was 37 years ago bolters my case about the forces of folly that smother such bold thinking. If you support truth-to-power people like Loury — think of my words as a way to help them.
Loury, McWhorter & Crew are doing their part — you’re not.
Cheerleading on YouTube doesn’t get it done.
Work is a journey on which you welcome challenge . . .
Work does not instantly respond — work digs to discover and inquires to clarify. Work is difficult and demands discernment. Work wonders, pauses, listens, absorbs, and reflects.
Work does not rest on who’s right and who’s wrong: Work wants to know if there’s something more to see, something to learn, something that sharpens the mind. Work never stops building on the foundation of your own work and what you learn from the work of others.
Work works its way through material that is not easy.
Work recognizes complexity and the demands of in-depth explanation. Work will go on a trip to ideas that take time and effort to understand. Work knows that you can’t see your way to a solution without understanding the different dimensions of a problem.
Work does not defend before you consider
Work does not race to conclusions — work arrives at them through careful consideration. Work is willing is rethink what you think you know. Work takes integrity, courtesy, curiosity, courage, and decency.
Work comes with the willingness to be wrong.
Work is not self-satisfied. Work does not sling snippets of certitude — work crafts argument on the merits. Work is an exchange where each party takes information into account. Work does not issue childish insults — work demands that you act your age.
Work respects your intelligence by using it — and shows respect to others as we work our way to mutual respect. Work won’t be pretty and might even get ugly — but work will do what it takes to work it out.
And if you wanna start solving problems — work is what it’s gonna take.
Speaking of work
I’m looking for fiercely independent thinkers for an idea that could turn the tide. If you’re not interested in hearing me out and having meaningful conversation — we have nothing to talk about and I wish you well.
Please contact me through the site or DM on Twitter — as I no longer respond to Tweets or superficial fragments of any kind.
It would be another year before I heard from Loury again — and it was yet another monumental moment when I did:
As with the first time: I lit up in the light of hope — then got back to work.
You can’t get caught up in expectations of what an intellectual at that level may do for your message. You leverage the uplifting feeling from their respect, and ya just keep plugging away on your purpose.
But with the behavior I witnessed across these communities — my faith eroded over time. Whatever I have to say below — I am eternally grateful to Glenn for the life-altering impact of his words on my work.
Rush Limbaugh once said
I’m an entertainer . . .
I didn’t believe him at the time — but now I think it’s the most honest thing he ever said.
So when I came across this question below, it really hit home. I had asked a similar question before I found this one. His was better. Not only was it more direct, but it also shed light on something I hadn’t thought of — and I love that.
I wanted to believe — and it’s easy to get lost along the way. But I never get lost for long, and this question kickstarted my turnaround.
No one addressed those questions — and I’ve only seen one other person since who asked the same.
First time I ever heard of John McWhorter was in a 2017 interview with Brian Williams. In talking about take a wild guess, he said . . .
He has a rather narcotic joy in dismissal and belittlement
A lot of that goin’ around
I’m sure it’s intoxicating to amass a following and feel like you’re making a difference. But I’m gonna weigh your impact partly as a reflection of your community:
How people behave — not what they believe.
If you can’t get that right, I don’t care how big your following gets — you’re taking this nation nowhere. Not in the right direction, anyway.
Courage means, first off, the unqualified rejection of lies. Do not speak untruths, either about yourself or anyone else, no matter the comfort offered by the mob. And do not genially accept the lies told to you. If possible, be vocal in rejecting claims you know to be false. Courage can be contagious, and your example may serve as a means of transmission.
We are living through an epidemic of cowardice. The antidote is courage. . . .
— Bari Weiss: Some Thoughts About Courage
I’ve seen no such courage in her community or any other. Following facts going in the direction you desire doesn’t count:
Anybody can do that
On the core issue in my documentary below, for nearly 20 years I’ve been practically spit on for following the very principles these communities promote on a daily basis.
And the contempt for the truth back then was tame compared to now. I’ve seen savagery on a level beyond anything that drove me to do this doc.
The quote below is not targeting Bari — it just perfectly frames my argument about these communities (including those I support):
But we’re all here because we share some important things in common: a commitment to reason, curiosity, independence, decency, and a hunger for honest conversation. In our upside-down world, holding fast to these ideals can sometimes feel lonely. More than ever, we crave the company of people who share our core values. [emphasis mine]
— Bari Weiss: Welcome to Year Two
It’s a nice gesture for Bari to bond with her audience.
But what people crave is the company of those who see themselves as they do. Without “commitment” and “holding fast” — it’s just wishful thinking, and it shows! Decades of delight in the Gutter Games of Government has crippled this country.
By being in bondage to baggage and baseless beliefs — painfully obvious lies become calcified as fact. We could do something about that . . .
But you’re busy
These communities are operating on narrative, not principle.
Case in point
We’re a university. We should be above whatever the fad or the fashion is of any given day. We should be looking at the deep questions. We should be analytical. We should be emphasizing reason. Instead, it was like a kind of emotional rush — in which . . . the president and provost and the top leadership of my university — wanted to jump on a bandwagon. They wanted to wave a banner.
And I thought to myself, what have we come to at the university — that the first reaction to grave matters — and the rioting in the street after George Floyd died is a grave matter.
That the reaction is not to think it through, not to question, not to assemble facts, not to make arguments — but instead to wave banners and spout slogans such that you could hardly distinguish what they were doing from a manifesto that would come out of Black Lives Matter
— Glenn Loury
Remove the references around George Floyd — and that behavior rings a bell.
Now I Remember . . .
As the patriots “Never Forget“
The aftermath of this
That the reaction is not to think it through, not to question, not to assemble facts, not to make arguments — but instead to wave banners and spout slogans such that you could hardly distinguish what they were doing from a manifesto that would come out of . . .
If you’re not gonna do your part and accept responsibility for the damage you’ve done and dishonesty baked into your beliefs — why should the Left?
Why should anyone?
Ripping on woke is all the rage. And outrage industries of dish it but can’t take it — would talk about race and responsibility till the end of time. But heaven forbid we have a single conversation about war and responsibility.
And it’s all connected
It doesn’t dawn on any of you that you helped create the conditions for the very things you’re fighting on this front. The Right treating Bush like the Second Coming of Christ — set the stage for the rise of the “Rock Star” they spent the next 8 years railing against.
I don’t understand the math in your methods:
You pay untold millions to political strategists — don’t these people do any cost-benefit analysis on the long-term impact of endless lying and ineptitude? If you think you can challenge me on that, I invite you to try.
I’ve been inviting you for a really long time:
I didn’t write this poem from my imagination.
It’s not anti-war — it’s pro-thinking . . .
We should be above whatever the fad or the fashion is of any given day. We should be looking at the deep questions. We should be analytical. We should be emphasizing reason.
Only for problems that are popular and easy to perceive? Whatever’s in your wheelhouse? Is that as deep as your questions go, Glenn?
The Left institutionalizes weakness — and the Democratic Party is notorious for lacking backbone. You weaken the very people you’re trying to strengthen — branding weakness to boot. And right on cue, the Right is ready to pounce.
I don’t blame ’em — except for the part about them being weak while branding strength.
Conservatives have put on a masterclass of complaining for 30 years — but because the intelligentsia on the Left perennially pumps candy into that piñata: They beat the hell out of you — while unconscionably ignoring the debauchery of their own behavior.
Sailing away on Scot-Free . . .
Conservatives control the narrative about responsibility and think that magically translates to taking responsibility. Republicans pounce on the Left day in and day out — as if the Right’s record vanished off the face of the earth.
It’s all about framing the narrative — and the Left institutionalizing weakness is a gimme for the Right to rail on ’em.
Preach responsibility and take none
That the Left brings it on themselves is another matter.
And the icing on the cake
Sincere intellectuals justifiably calling out universities, woke ways, racially rigged incidents and such: Providing endless fodder for the Right to rip people for behavior that pales in comparison to what they’ve done for decades.
The Right delights in ridiculing the Left for burning buildings to further the cause. Yet they went batshit crazy after 9/11: Setting the world ablaze — and browbeating anybody out of line in their March of Folly.
That — is faith-based belief at its best . . .
The Left’s anti-racism religion, woke, and whatnot — they’re amateurs. I didn’t write Mariana Trench of Mendacity from my imagination either.
The Right wants the Left and the black community to get its act together on matters deeply woven into the fabric of America’s long history of brutality and disgrace:
Slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, murder, decades of civil rights violations, questionable shootings, and so on . . .
While the Right won’t even look at the material properties of a tube. What’s wrong with that picture — and this one?
Hmm, so the dimensions exactly match the tubes used in Iraq’s history of manufacturing the Nasser-81mm artillery rocket (a reverse-engineered version of the Italian Medusa)
Be quite a coincidence if they weren’t . . .
Ya know, connected
Oh my god . . .
He used an unrelated movie to make a point and tossed in some comedy for effect. What does that say about the quality of his argument?
It says you need to get your head out of your ass — and stop flailing about like an imbecile incapable of understanding anything.
But by not deviating from their lane, they don’t understand the roadblocks within it that were created outside of it. What they fail to recognize is that their efforts act like a firewall by unwittingly providing an unlimited supply of candy to that piñata.
I’m not suggesting they stop
I’m suggesting they reframe the debate by broadening it (and I have an idea for precisely how to do it).
To the uneducated, abstract ideas are unfamiliar; so is the detachment that is necessary to discover a truth out of one’s own knowledge and mental effort. The uneducated person views life in an intensely personal way — he knows only what he sees, hears or touches and what he is told by friends. As the unknown sage puts it, “Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.”
But more than ever, even the most educated minds act in an uneducated manner in service of their interests — and harm them in doing so.
[W]e must accept responsibility for a problem before we can solve it.
In a nation that incessantly blames and complains (seemingly for sport) — no one’s taking responsibility for anything. If we don’t right this ship, we will not see a return to some semblance of recognizing reality in our lifetime.
Mark my words
Your ways will seal that fate.
It would be extremely difficult to reach the Left no matter what you do. But by feeding that firewall, you’re building in barricades that block you from reaching them in ways you might be able to without the Right sailing Scot-Free.
By the way
The right often accuses the left of exaggerating victimhood, turning a blind eye to reality, and distorting language to do so. The left, it’s often said, harbors “snowflakes” and the like who are beset by a victim complex. Lately, however, this frame of mind knows no party or political affiliation. Especially since the Capitol riot, assorted conservative figures have embodied a fragility of the right.
Mr. McWhorter — I’ve been in the trenches dealing with these chronic complainers for a helluva lot longer than “lately.” Not only did they systematically deny the obvious on the most important matter of our time — they proudly refuse to even allow the debate to get to the point of what it’s even about.
So they’re not simply denying that the tubes were incapable of enriching uranium . . .
The nation never got that far — not even remotely close.
In a country that can’t even establish that much — on a matter of world-altering magnitude: How can we possibly solve problems that aren’t so crystal clear?
And those who recognize that — have no qualms about denying this:
To conform to fact
We must agree that it was watermelon and consider what it means: Maybe nothing, maybe everything. But you pollute the debate when you won’t even acknowledge the irrefutable.
Worse than that — you poison your purpose (on that front and all others).
Speaking of religion
The psychological gymnastics of human nature has become a plague across America:
Believing things that have no bearing on reality . . .
I play an aggressive game. I don’t flop. I’ve never been one of those guys
— Lebron James
There was a time when it would be embarrassing for a ball player to feign being fouled on the level of theatrics in King James’ court. You’d be laughed off the court for pulling stunts like that in my day. This man takes no pride in how he wins — and it’s increasingly rare to find people who do.
It’s all the more absurd when you consider that even with the hardest-hitting fouls back in the 80s — nobody flailed about like that on impact.
Never mind Lebron’s built like a Tiger tank.
Tiger Tanks Could Withstand a Dozen Sherman[s]
The only way that so many levels of sham & stupidity could be so easily accepted — is that it was normalized little by little over time.
Ain’t that America
His words are pure fantasy
But it doesn’t matter, because that’s the country we’ve become — where words are empty and utterly baseless claims can be beaten into your brain as bedrock fact.
You can apply a follow-the-facts standard in one breath and abandon it the next . . .
And get away with it with ease — because you’ve got “friends”:
The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence we have specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, we would expect the belief to be maintained and the believers to attempt to proselyte or to persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct.
These five conditions specify the circumstances under which increased proselyting would be expected to follow disconfirmation.
The NBA implemented an anti-flopping rule almost a decade ago, but it’s rarely enforced. That such a rule was needed in the first place is bad enough, but then they created one with fines that are a joke — since they miserably fail to follow through.
So the saga continues — much like America’s ever-increasing acceptance of the asinine & flagrantly false.
A buffoon befitting of this circus music — that is the legacy he’ll leave behind. He doesn’t concern himself with the future and the harm he does in shaping it.
And neither do you
The solution to this problem is more truth, not less
No, it’s not — you can’t fight the problems of today head-on, you’ve gotta be more sophisticated than that.
And if you’re all so enlightened by the likes of Loury & McWhorter — shouldn’t the extent of your insight go beyond instantly perceiving my efforts as advocating for “Less Truth, More Filling“?
What’s wrong with this picture?
Nothing in the atmosphere of America is improving on any front:
But hey . . .
We’ve got 24 million visitors to our website, an email list of 2 million & growing, fundraising on the rise, and a million actions taken.
“Destroy BLM Narrative”
For 3 minutes and 46 seconds? So what?
As I wrote on Two Sides of the Same Counterfeit Coin: Part 3:
What if Kaepernick kneeled and acknowledged that they need to do their part while asking the police to do theirs?
Hold the phone — you want us to share some responsibility?
You wanna solve the problem or protest about it?
Chris Rock didn’t come up with this sketch out of thin air. But for me to suggest that this is the entire problem — would be as preposterous as you denying it’s part of it.
But no, you wanna debate that too
Even a multi-millionaire like Don Lemon’s got a chip on his shoulder.
I am one who always says that should comply with police officers — especially as a man of color. When I’m stopped by a police officer: “Officer, why are you stopping me?” Yes, officer or whatever. Now, I’m an American — I shouldn’t have to do that. I shouldn’t have to be “Yes, sir” to anybody. I’m a grown, ‘you know what’ man.” But I do it because I want to stay alive. That’s why I do it. I shouldn’t have to.
How about just doing it out of courtesy and respect?
How hard is it to just put yourself in their shoes — and consider the crap that cops deal with day in and day out?
Yeah, they signed up for it — but you can do your part to make the situation go as smoothly as possible.
And Don — your audience blew right by that bit about complying and seized on “I shouldn’t have to.”
I’m glad someone brought up Castile though, as it reminded me of what I wrote in 2017:
My view of police officers these days: They’re overly protective of their own safety — in a job that by definition, comes with a certain degree of danger.
If you’re unwilling to take that extra split-second to ascertain the threat, then you have no business being in that job.
We all have a responsibility when dealing with the police. If you cop an attitude (especially in today’s climate) — you are radically increasing your chances of getting gunned down).
Yes, you can find examples where blacks did everything right and got killed anyway. But I’m betting that number pales in comparison to the times where they didn’t follow instructions.
In many cases, they didn’t deserve to be shot, but they played a role in what happened. Properly following instructions would have most likely produced a different outcome.
This officer in Castile’s case was clearly out of control. Even if Philando didn’t do something exactly as the officer expected — the slightest misunderstanding is not grounds for shooting someone (not to mention the absurd number of shots).
By that standard, you could justify anything — like invading a Middle Eastern country because you feel like it.
Imagining a threat is not enough
And it’s all the more outrageous given that the guy acknowledged he had a weapon. This person’s comment nailed it:
If someone is trying to get the drop on you, I don’t think they would calmly say “I just want to let you know that I have a gun”
Yanez stated that his justification for the shooting was based on fear for his own life because he believed that Castile’s behavior was abusive toward a young girl passenger (Reynolds’ daughter) in the car.
Yanez said: “I thought, I was gonna die, and I thought if he’s, if he has the, the guts and the audacity to smoke marijuana in front of the five-year-old girl and risk her lungs and risk her life by giving her secondhand smoke and the front seat passenger doing the same thing, then what, what care does he give about me?”
That’s an awful lot of analysis for something that happened so fast. His argument is absolutely ridiculous — and has legalese written all over it.
I don’t buy it for a second.
You cannot make sweeping assumptions like that in ascertaining a threat. And it’s absurd that an officer would fear for his life over the perception of a person’s character regarding secondhand smoke.
I’d rather go to prison than come up with such a stupid excuse.
Speaking of excuses
This notion that compliance and respectability can save someone’s life in an encounter with police is not the reality for black men in this country
— Charles Coleman, Jr.
Worked out well for this guy . . .
To be sure, “compliance and respectability” doesn’t always pan out — but it’s the smart move, the right thing to do, and it gives you the best shot of walking away unharmed.
When you act like the one on the right below, you’re not only endangering yourself — you’re helping to create the atmosphere of confrontation for others by putting the police on edge.
The attitude on the left would do no such thing. Charles Coleman, Jr. is dead wrong — as the importance of attitude cannot be overstated.
If you wanna solve problems instead of perpetuating them . . .
It’s gotta get ugly — or as ol’ Bill perfectly put it:
Kneel, but couple your message with Kobe’s — and you change the dynamic of the debate.
I won’t react to something just because I’m supposed to, because I’m an African-American. That argument doesn’t make any sense to me. So we want to advance as a society and a culture, but, say, if something happens to an African-American, we immediately come to his defense? Yet you want to talk about how far we’ve progressed as a society? Well, then don’t jump to somebody’s defense just because they’re African-American.
The Right would still fuss over it — but they might cut ya some slack if you’re kneeling with a shared purpose.
Protesting in a wholesale manner shows you’re not serious about recognizing the realities of a problem. It says you want to see it only from your perspective.
That — will never work
And lo and behold — neither will this:
You wanna solve problems or protest about ’em?
Just picking the root that works for you doesn’t get it done — you’ve gotta look at interconnected causes across the board (including how you played a role in creating them).
Repeatedly rehashing the same topics is not the mark of Loury’s “looking at the deep questions.”
They’re not solving problems — they’re serving a market.
Like Black Lives Matter, they’re just pounding away at problems without any examination of the efficacy of their efforts.
The Profile principle
America has gone totally off the rails in its worship of the wildly undeserving.
I wrote those words in 2014 — in my doc that was prompted by the aftermath of the Zimmerman verdict. I had just returned from interviewing a world-renowned nuclear scientist as research for my book — when I saw this scene below.
Hannity perfectly framed his “profile” inquiry.
It was so good it gave me the idea for how to frame his flagrant failure to apply the same principle on the war.
HANNITY: Does this fit the profile of a person with racial animus — a guy that took a black woman to his prom? He mentored black children and after the program concluded he continued mentoring them, brought minority children into his home, and then stood up for a black homeless man against the Sanford police. Does that fit the profile of a man that’s racist?
TAMARA HOLDER: It may or may not. It may or may not.
Keep the Faith
The only logical answer to Hannity’s question is ‘”NO!” Due to the confines of the question, the answer would still be “no” — even if he were a racist.
That seems counterintuitive, but the parameters of the probe were restricted to the domain of specific behavioral patterns.
Tamara Holder contaminated the discussion by refusing to separate her support for even a second — to simply answer a question with integrity . . .
— Richard W. Memmer: Prologue
On the Trayvon tale, Hannity floated questions with a cross-examiner’s skill, and yet he never applied that “profile principle” to Iraq by asking: Does this fit the profile of a top-tier nuclear scientist . . . a guy with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering with an ancillary role in the uranium enrichment industry?
While at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1980s, Joe Turner tested and operated centrifuges, but he has no design or development experience in their incredibly complex theory.
Does it stand to reason that this engineer-turned C.I.A. analyst would become the arbiter on the aluminum tubes intel — trumping all the true experts — including the world-renowned nuclear scientist, Dr. Houston Wood — who actually created and ran the centrifuge department at Oak Ridge?
— Richard W. Memmer: Prologue
After your all that time & tutelage from “National Treasures” — I can’t get so much so much as a . . .
Does it stand to reason?
But we’re all here because we share some important things in common: a commitment to reason, curiosity, independence, decency, and a hunger for honest conversation. In our upside-down world, holding fast to these ideals can sometimes feel lonely. More than ever, we crave the company of people who share our core values.
No, and neither does Bari’s claim above.
This nation does nothing in the spirit of exchange, give & take, and arguing in good faith. Talk about being “triggered” (since that’s the lingo you love): Instantly firing back with “Where’s your facts?” — in the face of maybe the most detailed documentary ever done on any subject . . .
is raw emotion
It would be unthinkable for me to refuse to look at someone’s work — and fire back with your “Where’s your facts?” refrain of an automaton because they don’t instantaneously appear.
And let’s get real: That’s a stunt — not a genuine inquiry in the interest of truth.
If you operated anywhere in the same galaxy of these claims below — the mountain of material I’ve written over decades would not exist.
It’s all marketing
If he were the genuine article — those books would not be so one-sided.
The notion that feelings over facts is limited to the Left is ludicrous. If you were trying to solve a problem instead of sell books and boost your popularity — you’d be fair-minded by addressing how this behavior applies across the board.
If it were truly about following the facts, you wouldn’t need slogans — and wouldn’t want ’em.
Your record would speak for itself.
Then again . . .
Do these people really wanna solve problems anyway? Do you?
But even if you look at it from a purely political viewpoint — had you held Trump to higher standards from the start, he might still be in office. Same goes for the other side — had they not wallowed in woke and played their tried and untrue games on race, Trump would not have won the White House in the first place.
But keep the faith
Like many alternatives, however, it was psychologically impossible. Character is fate, as the Greeks believed. Germans were schooled in winning objectives by force, unschooled in adjustment. They could not bring themselves to forgo aggrandizement even at the risk of defeat.
— Barbara Tuchman
And this religion takes the cake
This crowd thinks they’re part of some revolution in reason by ceaselessly Tweeting the tenets of Thomas Sowell.
Never mind they instantly abandon them the second he’s under scrutiny.
The rolodex of excuses around Sowell is off the charts. There’s a faction for forgiveness — by people who have nothing of the kind for their enemy.
Everyone is human and at least occasionally shows poor judgement.
That doesn’t cut it when you miserably fail to acknowledge that poor judgment:
Particularly when you make a living pouncing on others about theirs.
On top of all that, they have absolutely no idea of the depths of deception involved here — but have no qualms about issuing instant forgiveness for it.
Faction for the hybrid model
- No big deal
- No authority
If your strongest criticism of him is that he was wrong on the Iraq war, I’d frankly say “big deal.” Millions of people were wrong about that shit back then. He had no political authority or say on the matter, so I think he could be forgiven for that mistake. (Assuming that you’re right of course, I’m still waiting for you to supply the evidence).
He has no idea what the deal is
But is perfectly satisfied in blowing it off as “no big deal.”
Toss in the “I’ll wait” tactic for good measure — when the only thing they’re waiting for is something to fuel their next fix.
Hard to Imagine . . .
That I have to explain that quote to people who seemingly live to flood the internet with his words.
He and his flock incessantly complain about the media — and they don’t make policy. But the second I scrutinize Sowell — suddenly you have new standards.
180 — how fitting
And this — is just priceless:
I’ll take Sweeping Assumptions for $1000, Alex . . .
Even if he said that stuff, your entire diatribe smacks of the now classic modern progressive tactic of taking a single mistake by anyone whose views they don’t like and using that one error in judgement to try and discredit ALL their work. Everyone is human and at least occasionally shows poor judgement.
Who said I disagreed with his work?
Outside of butchering the debate on WMD — and his partisan hackery in flagrantly ignoring his own camp’s abominable behavior, record of recklessness, systematic lying, and hypocrisy that knows no bounds:
I haven’t come across anything I object to.
At every turn, the faithful tap dance around reality — oily evading anything that requires them to hold him to his own standards.
I’m still waiting for you to supply the evidence.
Sowell’s army of apologists are gutless in the face of facts they don’t like — disguised by their goose-stepping glory in the Facts Over Feelings Parade.
He’s the Grand Marshal of this lockstep lovefest — and the Admiral of the Scot-Free fleet.
You were saying, Bari . . .
But we’re all here because we share some important things in common: a commitment to reason, curiosity, independence, decency, and a hunger for honest conversation. In our upside-down world, holding fast to these ideals can sometimes feel lonely. More than ever, we crave the company of people who share our core values.
In 18 months of writing about Thomas Sowell, I’ve seen everything from “polite” dismissiveness to sheer savagery. In some cases, his followers defend him before they even know what the subject matter is. I’m even assailed on things we agree on, because you assume I’m out to discredit Sowell on everything.
Blind devotion is not a path to understanding anything — which does a colossal disservice to your purpose. And that behavior is a gross breach of the very principles you put him on a pedestal for.
Even on the issues in question — my objective is not to destroy his reputation. Quite the contrary. Believe it or not, my aim is to make Thomas Sowell the catalyst who could turn the tide. The ultimate irony is that your blind loyalty limits him — while my criticism could elevate him to heights your hero-worship ensures he’ll never go.
I’ve even had people instantly Like the link to this post below — without having the slightest clue what it’s about. They made assumptions simply because the title has the overtone of praise that they’re used to.
Operating on assumptions and appearances is not the mark of Sowell’s standards.
Not like you think . . .
And heaven forbid you hold him to his own standards to find that out.
Someone on Quora politely questioned my claim that “fighting that religion has become another religion.”
They are using science, reason and data to back up their position; something the wokesters steer clear of.
Whad’Ya call this? . . .
I’ve been using “science, reason and data” for decades — and I’ve been shown nothing but contempt. My entire documentary is driven by “science, reason and data” — and I’m mercilessly mocked by people who won’t watch one second.
Of all those in that crowd I’ve challenged on WMD — their knowledge combined could fit into a thimble with space to spare.
But earlier times were tame compared to the blind worship I have witnessed in the echo chamber around Sowell. Almost makes me miss the good ol’ days of garden-variety Bush apologists — when at least their contempt for the truth was in the theatre of war.
Sowell’s disciples are a whole other breed of bullshitters who butcher reality — while incessantly bitching about others doing the same.
Bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.
— Blurb to On Bullshit by Harry G. Frankfurt
lemme get this straight
The “wokesters” aren’t allowed to steer clear of “science, reason and data,” but you are? Heavens, no — because you believe you do things you don’t. As long as you’re goin’ after the “wokesters,” you can act as though your record vanished off the face of the earth.
Probably the most powerful of these group cohesive forces is narcissism. In its simplest and most benign form, this is manifested in group pride. As the members feel proud of their group, so the group feels proud of itself.
A less benign but practically universal form of group narcissism is what might be called “enemy creation,” or hatred of the “out-group.” We can see this naturally occurring in children as they first learn to develop groups.
It is almost common knowledge that the best way to cement group cohesiveness is to ferment the group’s hatred of an external enemy. Deficiencies within the group can be easily and painlessly overlooked by focusing attention on the deficiencies or sins of the out-group.
— M. Scott Peck, People of the Lie
Believing in a higher being has a basis in reason — and whatever your religion or faith is fine by me. My concern is the faith-based belief that has no bearing on reality — religion that rules over reason without shame.
Wars have started that way
To believe in an invisible deity is not delusional, but denying what’s right in front of your eyes — is delusional by definition:
- A delusion is a mistaken belief that is held with strong conviction even when presented with superior evidence to the contrary
- Characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument
- Something a person believes and wants to be true, when it is actually not true
And the only way you can pull off the above is with the prejudice below:
As the mere mention of “prejudice” is almost invariably associated with race, it’s critical to define what we’re talking about.
- An attitude that always favors one way of feeling or acting especially without considering any other possibilities
- An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts
- The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions
- A partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation
“Bias” gets all the press . . .
When prejudice is paramount to the problem. If it were just bias, while convincing you with overwhelming and undeniable evidence might still be difficult — you’d be willing to be convinced.
Prejudice doesn’t roll that way. In fact, it doesn’t roll anywhere — as you don’t budge one bit, and take pride in it, no less.
As a friend comically put it:
It’s not “Pride and Bias”
This bit about Coleman Hughes captures the principle upon which my site and documentary were founded:
[Coleman] Hughes says he formerly accepted the premise of Black Lives Matter — that, in his words, “racist cops are killing unarmed black people” — but now believes that this premise does not survive scrutiny once factors other than race are taken into account.
“But now believes” . . .
“To learn to ask: ‘Is that true? Maybe there’s something to what she just said. Let me think about it. That’s interesting. Maybe I should change my mind. I changed my mind.’”
“Said so and so”:
And all their ridiculous diversionary tactics to deny the obvious . . .
Cannot survive scrutiny once other factors are taken into account.
like evidence and stuff
“It was time to take stock”
That’s the Loury I was looking for. I didn’t find him. You asked them to take stock — just don’t ask you.
Sowell is a great man because of his books. I stand by that. you want to refute his books — go ahead. I’m listening.
— Glenn Loury
You confine his record to a box of beliefs that suit you — and stand by that.
How noble of you
So the rules of argument you espouse on a daily basis don’t apply to you — a lot of that goin’ around too!
You said that they had no argument against your [R]ebuttal to Brown University’s letter on racism in the United States. Neither do you on your “National Treasure.” Instead of listening and learning on things you know nothing about — you let pride consume you.
Sowell sold out to sell those books you stand by — and I wrote “Water is Not Wet — And I Stand by That” with the likes of Loury in mind.
Heart Over Mind
I love you so much that I can’t leave you
Even though my mind tells me I should
But then you make me think that you still love me
And all my thoughts of leaving do no good . . .
You’ve got me heart over mind worried all the time
Knowing you will always be the same
You’ll keep hurting me I know but I still can’t let you go
Cause my heart won’t let my love for you change