Loury once called my writing “brilliant” and was “blown away” by this site and signed up. He was “honored” by what I had to say, but he wasn’t too keen on the truth when I took his hero to task.
He wasn’t about to look at undeniable evidence warranting that he change his mind — so he changed the rules:
Right on cue | Never fails
A lot of that goin’ around
Had Loury listened to me 2 years ago this month — we could have changed the rules by putting a mechanism in place that boxes you in to abide by them.
Ya know, the rules you rail on others for failing to follow — then instantly abandon them when they don’t work in your favor.
At times, the Right is justifiably infuriated by the Left, and vice versa — and this site illustrates their systematic efforts to derail debate. I can see that with crystal-clear clarity — because unlike most of America:
I Don’t Have Situational Rules
We’re well beyond “disagreement” in America — this is madness (countless millions miserably failing to follow even the most fundamental methods of how understanding works):
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 this one . . .
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)
As I said in my doc:
At the heart of why we fail to live up to our potential as a society is because we excel at polluting even the purest form of fact. How can we possibly solve serious problems when we refuse to adhere to some semblance of the fundamentals of making sense?
— Richard W. Memmer: Epilogue
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. If you wanna challenge me on that — I invite you to try.
I’ve been inviting you for a really long time . . .
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 . . .
Geraldine Ferraro and Rush are in opposite camps, and yet she said essentially the same thing as he did:
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.
Every word of her statement is true — but that didn’t matter one bit to those who bombarded her with “vicious e-mail messages accusing her of racism.”
Utterly Ridiculous
And I say that as someone who voted for Obama in 2008. I gave Romney a shot in the second round. I just have this old-fashioned idea about not rewarding people who are dishonest and don’t do a good job.
This nation has no such notion.
That Rush did more damage to America than maybe anyone in history — has no bearing on the truth when he told it. He also wrote some good books for kids — and big kids like me.
My mind is not for sale — so I can see what’s what:
No matter what I think of the source.
I’m an entertainer . . .
When Rush Limbaugh said that long ago, I didn’t believe him. 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:
My version . . .
Across those communities
I’ve never seen anything with even a hint of the questions we asked. And what they miserably 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. Someone really “looking at the deep questions” — would have the courage to consider mine.
By not deviating from your lane — you don’t understand the roadblocks within it that were created outside of it.
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.
McWhorter & Loury-like communities are operating on narrative, not principle. It’s a sign of the times that you could celebrate “follow the facts” and refuse to go anywhere near ’em.
Following facts going in the direction you desire doesn’t count.
Anybody can do that
An endless barrage of niche-based argument to beat back bunk — has no chance in today’s trench warfare between armies of unreachables.
Maybe when you’re done talking race, woke, and CRT for the ten-thousandth time — we can consider approaching problems in a more multi-dimensional manner?
Just a thought!
Alas, we live in a world that would rather split hairs over semantics than consider the spirit of an argument.
Whether or not it’s literally “religion” is not the point — it’s faith-based belief that has no bearing on reality:
A.K.A. Wishful Thinking.
Speaking of which — repeatedly rehashing issues is not the mark of problem solving:
It’s the mark of a market . . .
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.
Such high praise from a man of his caliber is a helluva lot of incentive for me to think these people are the “geniuses” their ever-growing audience thinks they are.
I don’t roll that way . . .
While I maintain a degree of respect for him — and I’m forever grateful for the inspiration he provided: If you’re part of the problem, I don’t care who you are — I’m calling you out.
And that’s
Speaking of which . . .
Cognitive dissonance doesn’t care that you signed a pledge.
And neither do you . . .
About that narrative
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 . . .
Tuchman alighted on a root cause of folly that she called “wooden-headedness” — defined in part as “assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting contrary information.”
— Russ Hoyle, Going to War
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.
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?
So you found one small crack in Sowell’s character where he defended Iraq having WMD, does that hurt his credibility?
This man muddied the waters of debate to serve himself:
On a little matter of war in the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11. Factoring for his history of hypocrisy and lying on that — along with ripping the Left while shamelessly ignoring the debauchery on the Right:
That “one small crack” is a wide-open window into his character and credibility.
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 and your ever-growing audience of dittoheads.
You’re “honored” by my “brilliant” writing in I Don’t Do Slogans on The Yellow Brick Road — and you’re “blown away” by my site: As long as I don’t challenge you to live up to the principles you preach when it comes at a price.
Got it!
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.
“It was time to take stock”
“The Civil Rights Movement is over” — in 1984!
That — took guts!
And that — is the Loury I was looking for. You said 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. Maybe you don’t know Sowell as well as you thought you did, and heaven forbid you hold him to the same standards pushing your popularity.
You asked them to take stock — just don’t ask you.
I wouldn’t care if Sowell cured cancer . . .
You don’t get a pass for basking in baseless beliefs that cripple the country — and have the bottomless nerve to preach responsibility & accountability to boot.
That is a cancer of its own
The poison he pumped into the atmosphere helped destroy the internal organs of America. So we have very different standards as to what qualifies as a “National Treasure.”
There are far worse culprits on all-things Iraq, but I’ve been down that road for decades. Discovering Sowell and the underworld of absurdity that shields him — makes him ideal to put these lies in their place once and for all.
And change the dynamic of debate to boot.
A “great man” would not have his egregious hypocrisy, gross negligence and lies plastered all over my website.
Sowell is not a great man — but he could be:
As a distinguished scholar once said: “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.”
— Thomas Sowell
Simply by virtue of writing those words — he couldn’t possibly do the same in service of his own interests? Oh my God — somebody’s not who they claim to be:
That’s never happened before.
With the mountain of childish & spectacularly stupid shit I’ve seen in defense of this man . . .
You’d think they really were born yesterday: Automatons who act as though they have no understanding of how to process anything that doesn’t instantly compute in their favor.
A lot of that goin’ around too . . .
And it shows
Anyone wanting to know the truth would not behave in ways that ensure they never will. If you abandon your critical thinking skills the moment you even perceive a threat to your interests — doesn’t that bring those skills into question? How can you expect anyone to admit when they’re wrong if you won’t?
And every time you allow emotion to run roughshod over reason, you further calcify habits at the other end of the spectrum from these:
Rather than assert that all opinions are equal, students in seminar learn to judge opinions on the basis of the reasons given for those opinions.
Nobody ever had to explain that to me. I’m sure you all feel the same:
And yet here we are
If you to want continue Tweeting your lives away — congratulating yourselves in echo chambers of affirmation, that’s your prerogative.
Just know that you reap what you sow.
Look around
But if you wanna start solving problems instead of forever talking about them: I’ve got an idea — and it’s got teeth:
And all ya gotta do — is do what you say you do . . .
One Voice Became Two 