Marching to Black Lives Matter with the first black president sitting in the White House — was that a smart move? The answer should be abundantly clear and yet the question is not even considered. I’ve been blocked on Twitter for just politely suggesting that BLM is a counterproductive cause.
Instead of considering how you could fight for justice more intelligently — you act like I’m saying you shouldn’t fight for it at all. You want to be taken seriously about having conversations on race when you won’t even agree to this much? . . .
From mock interviews in my doc below: The operative words are in the framing of the question: “Does this fit the profile?” Whatever the truth might be, the premise of the inquiry is based on behavioral patterns. If you’re arguing in good faith, you’ll respond in good faith.
If you’ve gotta sidestep the obvious to win the argument — you don’t have the goods to make it.
What I think of Hannity is precisely to the point of this entire site: That I can strip away anything extraneous to see a situation for exactly what it is: On the evidence & moments that matter most:
On the merits
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.
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
You can say, “No, but . . .”
That’s legitimate.
And by doing that alone, you’ve done your part by answering with integrity. Then you can proceed to make your argument (without poisoning the debate in the process). Even if Zimmerman had gunned him down as the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, THIS Does Not = THAT.
And if you think I don’t apply the same standard across-the-board, you’re wrong about that too. Stick around — you’ll see.
The second you shun evidence that doesn’t fit the narrative you want — you have contaminated your judgment. How quickly you come to your conclusions — and what you’re willing to ignore to solidify them: That is the underlying message of my efforts. 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
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:
It astounds me that some of the most brilliant minds in the world seem incapable of correlating how “unrelated” issues impact one another. The most harmful pollution on the planet is noise — narrative that drowns out sensible discussion.
You could blame those who amplify that deafening noise with delight — or be smart by not doing dumb things that drive the narrative in the first place.
Pursuing aims in ways that predictably damage your cause is bad enough. But once the outcome becomes clear, it’s beyond belief that you refuse to reflect on your methods. Even if you’re right and have the best of intentions:
If you’re not smart in making your moves, you can exponentially worsen the problem you’re addressing — along with seemingly unrelated ones.
And already have — again and again:
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
Unschooled in Adjustment
Does the Democratic Party have a history of manipulating racially charged incidents? Undeniably! Has the left-leaning side of the cable clans increasingly accommodated Democrats over the years? Without question! Can you conclude what happened to Trayvon and Michael Brown with the same certainty as the death of George Floyd?
No way — but ya did, and in lickety-split fashion.
Once you acknowledge that you’re being played — you have to be willing to ask, “How much of what I see was manufactured for my benefit?” Only when you open your eyes to that reality will you be willing to ask this next question:
Was that smart move?
It’s a sign of the times that people fail to understand the premise of such a simple question.
What’s more, they make it nearly impossible to explain it to them — as detail has a way of complicating the narrative. Even if drawing attention to a problem produces some positive activity, the concept of unintended consequences entirely escapes those consumed by what they see only in the moment.
Nobody nailed Obama better than Matt Damon:
A one-term president with some balls . . . [would have been] much better
When one of your most ardent supporters is questioning your manhood, it’s time to take a long, hard look in the mirror. But past is prologue — which is why I knew Obama wouldn’t be the candidate he claimed. Someone without a record of risk is not a catalyst for change.
Nevertheless, I gave him a shot in 2008.
He blew it . . .
And I don’t reward people for poor performance and dishonesty. I’m old-fashioned that way.
The moment Obama caved on the Democratic Party playbook on race — he put Trump on the path to the presidency. It’s quite possible that Comey’s cover-his-ass actions in the 11th hour tipped the scales. Given the possibility that a single event like that could alter the atmosphere of an election — what do you think pouring fuel on the fire for years did?
If the indiscriminate approach of BLM pisses me off: What do you think it did for people gunning to bring Obama down?
You overplayed your hand
He had golden opportunities to take the country forward, but instead of leading the way — he followed his base and went backwards. Given the tight margins — there’s not a doubt in my mind that their ploys put Trump in the White House.
And still — you don’t learn
At the core of our country’s decline — is the unrelenting refusal to get to the bottom of anything.
Like this 1619 business: You wanna draw correlations from the past while flagrantly ignoring crystal-clear connections in the present. Black Lives Matter, monuments, kneeling, and now this?
You’re all over the place — and you’ve got company:
As with Kaepernick’s kneeling, Black Lives Matter, and the removal of monuments — what are you really gonna gain out of 1619? Even if you could miraculously get what you want:
And you have a better chance of walking on water.
What’s it gonna take for you to see the unintended consequences that come with it? Therein lies the folly of it all. This consortium of causes has no chance of achieving anything remotely in the realm of your loosely defined aims — and you’re doing catastrophic damage to the very thing you’re trying to remedy.
I don’t care if Kaepernick kneels . . .
I care that you can’t solve multidimensional problems with one-dimensional gestures. “I ask a different question” — I do that a lot. What if Kaepernick kneeled and acknowledged that they need to do their part while asking the police to do theirs? And right on cue:
Hold the phone — you want us to share some responsibility?
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.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Nothing in the atmosphere of America is improving on any front. In fact, it’s worsening by the day. 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.
Kneel, but couple your message with Kobe’s below — and you change the dynamic of the debate. Had Obama said these words instead, POTUS would have put us on a new path.
And wasn’t that the point of his presidency?
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 the kneeling and whatnot — 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.
Has it ever occurred to anyone in BLM that simply calling it something else would have served your interests far better? “All Lives Matter”: How could you not see that tit for tat in taglines coming?
You predictably damaged the debate on the name alone.
And now, even now
The cat . . . TOTALLY out of the BAG!
But that’s me
This nation has no such notion:
I don’t see what the problem is
— Typical Tweeter tapping earth-shattering insight
You don’t see — a lot!
Your track record is not what I would call astute:
The people who consider themselves to be the saviors of black people — are hurting black people, because what they’re committed to is more virtue signaling than actually doing something in the world.
— John McWhorter
“Enslaved People”
It’s not the change in terms that bothers me so much:
It’s the complete absence of intellectually honest discussion by people preoccupied with victories in vocabulary.
When I am making my edits, “John’s slave” becomes “a person enslaved by John.” “John owned Sally” becomes “John enslaved Sally.” . . .
Good grief!
Consider this sentence: “George Washington owned slaves at Mount Vernon.” It doesn’t agitate our sense of morality as much as the sentence “George Washington enslaved people at Mount Vernon,” does it? To most people, it seems much worse to say, read, or hear that someone “enslaved” other people than that they “owned” other people.
That’s partially because ownership is one of the primary rights and most cherished ideas in the American system — and most Western systems — of government.
I’m not among “most” . . .
And on what basis is she making the claim that “most people” see it that way? “Owned” has an ugliness that “enslaved” does not — precisely because we know it’s not a “primary right” to own people. Such efforts are really reaching to re-engineer what cannot be undone.
All this over-the-top engineering of sensitivity has gotten totally out of hand. Excessive sensitivity breeds hypersensitivity. When you water things down to be politically correct, our nation’s ability to discern decreases right along with it: Creating a culture that’s increasingly more easily offended and radically irrational — across the board.
It just never ends . . .
In our culture of instant offense, we ban before we think. However, banning isn’t a sign of strength or resolve, but an admission of defeat, of showing how little we have engaged with whatever the bigger issue that belies the ban.
Instead of asking or addressing the roots of violent racism in the South in 2015 — far too difficult, far too intimidating — we focus on symbols. If we take a flag down, if we remove a TV show from the schedules, it shows we are doing something.
It shows our hearts are in the right places.
Renaming teams and pancake products, kneeling, knocking down monuments, wiping Indians off boxes of butter, banning Dukes of Hazzard, and Microsoft’s Inclusiveness Checker to program you proper:
Enough already!
These are not serious-minded measures for problem solving.
From as far back as I can remember, I loved the Land O’Lakes Indian. And then they butchered the spirit of it for the sake of sensitivity. If such measures had any chance of actually making an impact that matters — I’d gladly sacrifice my precious brand of beauty.
For those who would try to educate me by saying I don’t understand the feelings involved in empty overtures that accomplish absolutely nothing:
No, you don’t understand . . .
And don’t even get me started on how homelessness is a problem perpetuated by those most sensitive in their approach to solving it. If you wanna start solving problems instead of perpetuating them, it’s gotta get ugly.
Or as ol’ Bill perfectly put it:
Tough love used to be timeless:
Now everything’s an assault on increasingly fragile egos. And so typical of the times — nothing has meaning anymore (which was predictable when you water everything down to the point where its original intent is conveniently forgotten).
Fact:
truth verifiable from experience or observation
If you have a history of hypocrisy and lying — you are a hypocrite and a liar. If you don’t like being called those things, don’t do those things. And right on cue: Calling criticism “mudslinging” is just somethin’ to say to escape scrutiny.
And the irony is, I’ve received almost nothing but mudslinging for decades — by people who cry foul with counterfeit claims on what they do for real. And let’s face it: You need it to be mudslinging, because if it’s not — your beliefs are gonna fall apart.
America has become a society of spin doctors who manipulate language anytime it suits your needs. It took the toppling of time-honored traditions to fabricate our fact-free liberties. In days long gone, “agree to disagree” was usually engaged with some degree of sincerity in order to get beyond an impasse with civility.
The intention of the well-meaning motto is that you actually offer something in the realm of sensible argument. Baseless assertions devoid of any effort to ascertain the truth do not qualify. Naturally, the slope got slippery over time as the egregious abuse of the adage caught on.
Nowadays you can “agree to disagree” about subject matter you know nothing about. Anything Goes in our Age of Unenlightenment — where “all opinions are equal” whenever you feel the need to call on that convenience.
There’s nothing sacred in our society:
Anything that can be butchered, will be. Somebody brilliantly captured the fallacy of this corrupted catchphrase:
I’ve been writing about this for over 20 years — and whad’ya know, Tom Nichols was tracking the same tactic:
“Conversational fire extinguisher” . . .
No matter what the subject, the argument always goes down the drain of an enraged ego and ends with minds unchanged, sometimes with professional relationships or even friendships damaged. Instead of arguing, experts today are supposed to accept such disagreements as, at worst, an honest difference of opinion.
We are supposed to “agree to disagree,” a phrase now used indiscriminately as little more than a conversational fire extinguisher. And if we insist that not everything is a matter of opinion, that some things are right and others are wrong . . . well, then we’re just being jerks, apparently.
Oh yeah, I know how they roll . . .
Anything Goes for apologists trying to preserve what they perceive. I know their Rolodex of Ridicule rabbit-hole routine — all too well:
And Now for the Weather
Good lord, the endless excuses and complaining in this country is embarrassing. For ages, we’ve had all the tools we needed for a hopeful humanity — but who needs ’em in slavish service of political gain.
Never mind how many times we go backwards by the means in which you move forward.
Dealing on the Moment
Is What America Does Best
Arrival is a movie that makes you think — and that’s a gift that keeps on giving. Their efforts to develop a conduit of communication is in striking contrast to how we talk to each other today. With the word “HUMAN” written on a whiteboard, they were able to build on that by seeing patterns in indecipherable symbols.
We have the most sophisticated communication tools in history — and we can’t even talk to each other in the same language.
Instead of listening and learning — slinging snippets of certitude has become America’s pastime. We’ve created a knee-jerk nation where discernment is derided and negligence is in vogue. What was beyond the pale in the past is now perfectly acceptable.
There was a time when adults acted their age. Those days are long gone — as the internet and the cable clans paved the way for the onslaught of the utterly absurd.
We’re in perennial pursuit of ideologies — warfare waged with:
opinions lightly adopted but firmly held . . . forged from a combination of ignorance, dishonesty, and fashion
— Life at the Bottom
On that note
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 wrote and produced the most exhaustive documentary ever done on WMD, I would know.
The rotor speed required to separate uranium isotopes doesn’t care who’s president, and when it comes to ascertaining the truth, neither do I.
In order to maintain such speeds, the material properties of centrifuges are as critical as it gets. You don’t need to interview a world-renowned nuclear scientist to figure that out — but I like to be thorough:
You’ve probably heard of yellowcake
How about uranium hexafluoride?
Does calling someone a “Bush hater” strike you as a valid counter to that question?
The surgical specificity of this clip puts this lie in its place in 5 minutes alone.
Trillion Dollar Tube
To take a story this complex and convoluted and boil its essence down to a few minutes was no small feat:
Imagine what I did with 160
“There is no skimming over the surface of a subject with [Hamilton]. He must sink to the bottom to see what foundation it rests on.”
— Major William Pierce (Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton)
Wouldn’t it be absurd to share that quote if my clip contained nothing but trite talking points? Some circles are not burdened by squaring their walk with their talk.
They seem to think that advertising virtue equates to embodying it.
Case in point:
People who talk glibly about “intelligence failure” act as if intelligence agencies that are doing their job right would know everything.
— Professional Know-It-All (PKIA for short)
D.O.E’s standard is to spin a tube at 20% above 90,000 RPM before failure — so 48,000 short is a pretty loose definition of “rough indication.”
— Richard W. Memmer: Act II
Between PKIA’s words and mine
Which ones strike you as glib?
But I’ve noticed nothing strikes you that doesn’t serve you.
What does it say to you that I had to come up with an alias for the figure in question — just so his crowd will consider his claims in isolation from his immaculate image?
Just as the Condi cartoon captures what words cannot — so too does the implication behind the alias.
What would you call someone who shoots their mouth off without addressing the evidence — but banks on their fabricated reputation to create the impression that they did?
About that Professional Know-It-All:
I’m not out to “DESTROY” Sowell
Quite the contrary! Stick around — you’ll see.
But lemme put it in terms you’ll understand: If he stepped into a debate with me on this matter, the beating he’d take would be biblical. If you think you can challenge me on that, I invite you to try.
I’ve been inviting you for a really long time . . .
On the title alone, if I came across this and hadn’t done my homework — my first thought would be:
I must be missing something pretty big
you have other ideas:
Button your lip and don’t let the shield slip
Take a fresh grip on your bulletproof mask
And if they try to break down your disguise with their questions
You can hide hide hide behind Paranoid Eyes
In 2 years of telling this story on Sowell:
Virtually every single supporter egregiously violated the principles he promotes — sharing their values with venom. I’m even assailed on things we agree on, because you assume I’m out to discredit him on everything.
You don’t even allow for the conversation to breathe enough to understand what you’re disagreeing about — and it’s been like that for 20 years:
By Design
America Remains Mired in the Murky
What does it say to you: That on evidence claimed as components to build a nuclear bomb — the “debate” was hijacked by 10-second sound bites?
Shouldn’t any debate establish what the debate is actually about? What does it say about a country that can’t even establish that much on a matter of this magnitude?
The road to reality is blocked by detours designed to keep you going in circles. Purveyors of poppycock reroute you with narratives that avoid detail like Black Death. The way out is to start with an inconsistency or two that’s narrow in scope — and take the trail where it leads.
To ascertain the truth on any topic:
If you’ve got something concrete to go on — that’s your point of entry. By all means, keep the door open in every direction. But by nailing down the definitive first, it paves a clearer path to all the rest.
This country does the exact opposite on everything — lumping it all together and never even approaching where you should have started in the first place:
This chart is misleading in several respects . . . Beams centrifuge never actually worked . . . We can infer . . .
Sounds pretty sloppy to me
Perhaps we should have a conversation to clear up what all this means on issues that have eroded reason beyond recognition?
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 [does it matter?]
— Glenn Loury
When the context suits you, such words are solid gold. What you do when it doesn’t — determines the worth of your word. Loury was talking about Black Lives Matter and the aftermath of George Floyd, but every word applies to the aftermath of 9/11 as well.
The Yellow Brick Road is the path of America’s pursuits — and how systematic oversimplification has taken over to the point where inconvenient correlations are condemned as convoluted. And any attempt to have a conversation on issues that clearly call for careful consideration — is hijacked by baseless beliefs beaten into your brain as bedrock fact.
From decades of being increasingly accommodating of liars aligned with your interests:
You kept lowering the bar
And Now There is No Bar
That’s the great conflict of my position: How to keep Montana growing — without losing that thing that makes it Montana
— Governor Perry, Yellowstone
This nation needs to be asking the same question about the soul of America — and all she’s lost in perennial pursuit of shortsighted gain.
My God — what a show!
And this — is a shitshow . . .
Give it a go . . .
I’ll be happy to show you the courtesy so few have shown me — in 20 years of telling undeniable truth that takes both parties to task: And being practically spit on for it.
Explaining America’s decline over decades of delight in the Gutter Games of Government — is apples & oranges as it gets when compared to the transactional nature of news and social-media norms. Understanding how seemingly unrelated events impact one another takes time and effort to digest.
And keep in mind — my mission is not driven by changing your values, but rather the manner in which you pursue them.
I don’t even want to be part of the debate — I just want honest debate. From decades of dealing with hermetically sealed minds — I came up with an idea for how to do that.
Think of this story as a Game of Thrones for America’s ploys for power that have predictably backfired. At 73 episodes over eight seasons — GOT is pretty involved and took a few viewings before I fully understood it.
Leaving aside that die-hard fans deride how Games went off the rails: It’s an incredibly intricate and entertaining show. Whatever its faults — it would be unthinkable for me to blame the writers for everything I didn’t follow the first time or two.
In fact, I’m glad I didn’t — as I enjoyed piecing it together during additional viewings.
No one would skip to the last season of a series. But imagine doing that and then ridiculing the writers because you’re confused. No rational person would do that. And yet, you expect me to tell my Games of Thrones story about the decline of America — not just by skipping to the last season:
But to the last episode . . .
And be quick about it to boot! Then you fire off your rapid-fire ridicule because you’re confused.
- I could summarize the story — but then it’s uncompelling
- I went straight into the evidence with my doc — but you refused to watch one second and mocked me with delight
- If I wrote it all on one post (including multimedia) — then it’s “way too long” (while you gripe about graphics that eliminate the need for tons of text)
- If I wrote it all on one post (cutting out the bulk of the multimedia) — it’s “miles too long”
- If I broke it into shorter pieces that lead into other shorter pieces (drilling into detail as we go): Then you don’t bother reading the connected pieces — but complain about what’s “missing” in the main piece that you griped about being “too long” in prior versions
Nothing computes — as I don’t fit the formula . . .
Never mind your formula created this clusterf#$% in the first place:
From the get-go
Almost every post points to an identifiable disconnect — enough to know that something’s not right with people you put on a pedestal.
You could skip the post and go straight to the doc — and watch one at a time for 7 days, 7 weeks or 7 months. You could watch clips and ask questions — exploring in a piecemeal pursuit of the truth in whatever way works for you.
You do nothing of the kind.
You skim my site and breeze on by clips at the crux of the story — as you’re not looking to learn, you’re looking to respond. And entire industries are engineering that need.
We get rewarded by hearts, likes, thumbs-up — and we conflate that with value, and we conflate it with truth.
My generation got off easy
All we were called to do was weigh information — but even that was too much of a burden. As we got more, we became less.
Searching “Social Dilemma” delivers no shortage of concern about the state of society — but ask ’em to do anything to address those concerns that takes time & effort to think through:
Same goes the biggest and most costly lie in modern history:
On a daily basis . . .
Countless people cry for accountability on Iraq — but ask ’em to invest a little time into understanding the story from the only person on the planet who told it in full (from all the angles that matter most) . . .
America is spinning its wheels on what sells — never mind it’s not working and counterproductive to boot. It may be profitable, entertaining, and occasionally win an election — but shortsighted thinking has a habit of harming your own interests in the long run.
Look around
I have an idea for how to change that and a compelling case for why it would work. Just one problem — its multidimensional depth doesn’t sell. Righting the trajectory of America by changing the dynamic of debate — just might.
But in order to do that, you’d have to understand how we got here in the first place. And therein lies the rub . . .
[W]e must accept responsibility for a problem before we can solve it
— M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled
In a nation that incessantly blames and complains (seemingly for sport) — no one’s taking responsibility for anything. The ever-rising ocean of partisan pettiness is gluttony under the guise of concern.
What would you call untold millions marching to a Twitter-rage parade on WMD — dishing on the deaths of Rumsfeld and Powell (and whatever anniversary marks the moment):
But too lazy to take the time to look at what we can do about it. Of course, that would require holding their own accountable as well:
So there’s that
Happy 20th Anniversary!
Seize the day to be jacked up on fuel to fire off your fury and excuses in a nation that never learns: But loves to light it up in lip service to virtues.
Ever-so bold behind force fields of fallacy that butcher those “beliefs.“
If only you’d laid it all out exactly as I like it — then I’d abide by the principles I preach
Is that how it works?
That’s about the size of it.
I guess I figured that if you didn’t understand something — you’d try this on for size, but I’m old-fashioned that way:
Funny how there’s always an excuse
Back in the day with my documentary — there was no website with an array of illustrations to gripe about. I was just sharing Trillion Dollar Tube to all these fine folks flaunting their badge of beliefs so F.A.I.R.
Showing a modicum of courtesy for a 5-minute excerpt doesn’t seem like much to ask such bastions of virtue. But without watching one second — self-satisfied scorn was your gold standard for gleefully gutting the truth.
And why mess with tradition?
The problems that plague America are interrelated . . .
Anything short of addressing that is going nowhere. But everyone’s wrapped up within their wheelhouse — operating under umbrellas of interests that don’t account for complexities outside of them. Just picking the “root cause” that works for you doesn’t get it done.
You’ve gotta look at interconnected causes across the board.
And this
Is where my Clear the Clutter framework comes in:
If you want to start solving problems, first you need to clear the clutter that’s crippled this country. To do that, you don’t go after everything, you go after one thing that ties to everything.
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 do catastrophic damage by doing so.
Case in point:
In this clip — McWhorter is wrong and Loury is right (and no rational person would argue otherwise). It’s just preposterous to act as though Obama wasn’t at fault for how he miserably handled race-related incidents. Of course social media turbocharged the problem, but he put it on a silver platter for people to do so.
Note the token nod to “agree to disagree.” One person is thinking things through and the other is not. But hey, let’s “agree to disagree” so McWhorter can feel good in denying the obvious:
It’s a mighty fine day when you wake up to find high praise from a man of Glenn Loury’s caliber . . .
Twice!
Loury wasn’t too keen on the truth when I took his hero to task though.
“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. Loury wasn’t about to look at undeniable evidence warranting that he change his mind:
So he changed the rules . . .
Right on cue | Never fails
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 called my writing “brilliant” 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.
Then there’s this:
And they already belonged to one before that:
There is no measure for how asinine these acolytes are in defending the indefensible — automatons devoid of rational thought & manners. Your behavior has not an atom of integrity, courtesy, curiosity, courage, decency, effort:
Or any virtue of any kind
On evidence involving artillery rockets and material properties of centrifuge rotors — the apostles of Sowell smugly cite his books on economics, race, and whatnot: Anything to glorify him as they abandon any notion of accountability:
Butchering his bedrock beliefs as they dance in delight behind their force field of fallacy.
These people do nothing but question my motives, mock my site, and assault my character — then proudly post quotes of Sowell looking stately as he condemns the very thing they’re doing.
- Repeat slogans: “Everybody believed Iraq had WMD”
- Question people’s motives: Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Plamegate & plenty more. Adding to the arsenal of childish crap to continue the tradition: Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party
- Bold assertions: Russians said so, British said so, Bill Clinton said so, Leaders of both parties said so . . .
No coherent argument, Repeat slogans, Vent their emotions, Question people’s motives, Bold assertions . . .
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
The same wishful thinking that’s utterly oblivious to the counterproductive nature of endlessly beating issues into the ground in entirely transactional tactics.
Repeatedly rehashing issues is not the mark of problem solving: It’s the mark of a market. All these channels are blunt instruments (including those I agree with). You’re just pounding away at problems without any examination of the efficacy of your efforts.
You’re all operating under umbrellas of interests that don’t account for complexities outside of them. I don’t see anyone examining the efficacy of their efforts.
And once again, if you think you’re making progress because of ever-increasing attention to your concerns . . .
I suggest you reconsider:
And that same wishful thinking worships Sowell as if he’s some kind of saint-like Sherlock Holmes — never mind his history of flagrantly ignoring facts to toe the party line.
Following Facts Where They Lead
“Said so and so”? . . . that’s one helluva trip you took there, Mr. Sowell.
Stirring Defense!
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? It’s painfully obvious what this guy’s up to: He’s engineering an illusion — and you bought it. It took me all of 10 minutes to size up Sowell. On WMD — it took 2.
At every turn . . .
The faithful tap dance around reality — oily evading anything that requires them to hold Sowell to his own standards.
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
Half the country took the word of professional know-it-alls over nuclear scientists. And when your camp came up empty on WMD — you just bought more bullshit from the same people who sold you the first batch:
Shrewd!
On top of unconscionably ignoring irrefutable evidence of mathematical certainty, he has a habit of toeing the party line. Not only did Sowell flagrantly fail to follow the facts on all-things Iraq — he brazenly ignored the debauchery in his own party to politely pounce on the other:
All of which flies in the face of the principles upon which he’s put on a pedestal. And yet somehow his patently obvious history of hypocrisy has gone unnoticed for decades by people heaping praise upon him.
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.
You introduce statements and arguments of people who aren’t Thomas Sowell
As this story is also
About the behavior of the echo chamber around Sowell — it’s kinda necessary to include other people to properly illustrate the problem. And I wouldn’t mind explaining everything — if you thought about anything.
With the bottomless sea of childish & spectacularly stupid shit I’ve seen in defense of this man — you’d think they really were born yesterday:
Automatons acting 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
Sowell’s second article on the subject is a 2-minute read at 752 words — not one of which addresses the tubes that took us to war. And yet this mountain of information below was publicly available before he wrote that article:
How do you reconcile that?
No need . . .
And who needs scruples when you’ve got an army of apologists to absolve you of anything that doesn’t comply with the PKIA Program.
This hero-worship horseshit has helped take this nation totally off the rails — as with everything else in a country that’s gone out of its mind:
If you don’t like my illustrations, go read the reports for yourselves: And I’ve got plenty more material to add to your reading list. But that takes work — and why bother when you can just ridicule those who did it for you.
One picture is worth a thousand words:
When you don’t want the pictures and you don’t want the words — what would you have me do?
And once I did it
We both know your next move . . .
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?
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.
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?
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 too!
The likes of Loury & McWhorter miserably fail to see how they are unwittingly conditioning people to act exactly as McWhorter’s quote above. 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.
What’s more, you’re making matters worse and being rewarded for it. I’m going to show you how to fix the problem you don’t even know you have. And I assure you — the gains you get now pale in comparison to what awaits you.
And all ya gotta do — is do what you say you do.
Such high praise from Loury is a helluva lot of incentive for me to think these people are the “geniuses” their 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
I started with this . . .
Then it came to this . . .
One Voice Became Two 