According to Donald J. Robertson's Substack on "Stoicism: Philosophy as a Way of Life": [Marcus Aurelius] Argued that Kindness is More Manly than Anger.
See how far kindness gets you with this crowd (or any other overture in the interest of truth and understanding). Sowell lied about a war that shaped everything you see today — and got off scot-free (as did both parties). Lemme save you some time: The first word that doesn't reflect someone seeking in-depth discussion — will be the last word I read. Thank you 🙏
What Happened to All This Jazz? Sowell & His Mindless Slogan Slingers
According to Donald J. Robertson's Substack on "Stoicism: Philosophy as a Way of Life": [Marcus Aurelius] Argued that Kindness is More Manly than Anger.
See how far kindness gets you with this crowd (or any other overture in the interest of truth and understanding). Sowell lied about a war that shaped everything you see today — and got off scot-free (as did both parties). Lemme save you some time: The first word that doesn't reflect someone seeking in-depth discussion — will be the last word I read. Thank you 🙏
What Happened to All This Jazz? Sowell & His Mindless Slogan Slingers
Shallow thinkers do not think beyond the immediate and the observable. They usually take information at face value and only look at immediate consequences. They are not capable of looking at all sides of an issue or think deeply about the issue before making decisions or drawing conclusions . . .
They also believe that their opinion is based on deep thinking because they genuinely believe that their opinion is based on truth and facts. Whereas, deep thinkers look at the whole sequence of events and the consequences. When we dig deeper, we understand better. We can compare different outcomes, examine, tear apart, and make cognizant judgments that are derived from different mental models.
*********************
Left and Right, I’ve yet to find a single person who digs beyond the depth of their immediate domain of interest. In our entirely transactional times, America endlessly rehashes topics of today — never once considering the totality of events that created them (or even having a notion of the need to). With the issues I address — you might as well be saying the Civil War wasn’t germane to the assassination of Lincoln. As I have an idea that could turn the tide — virtually all conversations on here fit under the umbrella of mine. If you’re not interested in such discovery, let’s not waste each other’s time. Thank you! 🙏
It astounds me that even that courtesy is hard to come by anymore. In a world where timeless truths are “outdated” — a lot of things are hard to come by.
It’s a mighty fine day when you wake up to high praise from a man of Glenn Loury’s caliber — twice! He once called my writing “brilliant,” was “honored by it,” and “blown away” by my site and signed up. I’d like to think that’d at least give me a little credibility with his supporters. I’d like to think a lot of things. What does it say to you that across communities where claims of critical thinking are everywhere — I haven’t found it anywhere? Ann Baker’s article beautifully captures what critical thinking is and is not:
“Indeed, nowadays, we tend to take in and repeat whatever the values and beliefs of those around us have rather than forming our own independent thought and stopping to organize and evaluate the information we are receiving.”
I’ve always hated Twitter and every long-form version of it (including the one I’m on right now). When I’m done doing what I gotta do — I’m never goin’ back (not to X or any other). Until then, I’m sending out a certain set of messages looking for intelligent life (fiercely independent thinkers who want to solve problems — not endlessly talk about them). I’ve got an idea — and it’s got teeth. Going by the galaxies filled with “rock stars” of reasoning across the social media universe — I should have no shortage of people eager to examine my idea and discuss how we could improve on it and proceed.
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.
You are being conditioned to do the exact opposite — as all of America has been for decades.
And in truth, a lot longer than that. As Alexander Hamilton beautiful put it:
*********************
To see the character of the government and the country so sported with, exposed to so indelible a blot, puts my heart to the torture. . . . Or what is it that thus torments me at a circumstance so calmly viewed by almost everybody else? Am I a fool, a romantic Quixote, or is there a constitutional defect in the American mind?
Were it not for yourself and a few others, I . . . would say . . . there is something in our climate which belittles every animal, human or brute. . . . I disclose to you without reserve the state of my mind. It is discontented and gloomy in the extreme.
I consider the cause of good government as having been put to an issue and the verdict against it.
— Ron Chernow, Hamilton
*********************
We could do something about that, but you’re busy. You’re always busy. Thank you for your time, but please don’t waste mine. And to make that abundantly clear: If you don’t want to click on either of the links below, that’s your prerogative. But here’s the deal: If you don’t earn my time, you don’t get my time. Anything short of specifically addressing my arguments within one or both of the stories below, and you will not hear from me. And to save you some time, I won’t even read your comment if it’s not within the parameters of that opening quote. The first sentence I see that falls outside that domain; will be the last sentence I see.
If you’re turned off by this — that’s the point (to weed you out).
I beat the hell out of both sides, and if you can’t handle some heat — you don’t qualify (so I don’t need ya). Call me whatever you like, I don’t care. For 20 years, I’ve been practically spit on for following principles those same people promote on a daily basis. When it comes to self-satisfied scorn, I’ve heard it all and I’ve seen it all (and made the most of it by making examples out of hermetically sealed minds).
Shallow thinkers do not think beyond the immediate and the observable. They usually take information at face value and only look at immediate consequences. They are not capable of looking at all sides of an issue or think deeply about the issue before making decisions or drawing conclusions . . .
They also believe that their opinion is based on deep thinking because they genuinely believe that their opinion is based on truth and facts. Whereas, deep thinkers look at the whole sequence of events and the consequences. When we dig deeper, we understand better. We can compare different outcomes, examine, tear apart, and make cognizant judgments that are derived from different mental models.
*********************
Left and Right, I’ve yet to find a single person who digs beyond the depth of their immediate domain of interest. In our entirely transactional times, America endlessly rehashes topics of today — never once considering the totality of events that created them (or even having a notion of the need to). With the issues I address — you might as well be saying the Civil War wasn’t germane to the assassination of Lincoln. As I have an idea that could turn the tide — virtually all conversations on here fit under the umbrella of mine. If you’re not interested in such discovery, let’s not waste each other’s time. Thank you! 🙏
It astounds me that even that courtesy is hard to come by anymore. In a world where timeless truths are “outdated” — a lot of things are hard to come by.
It’s a mighty fine day when you wake up to high praise from a man of Glenn Loury’s caliber — twice! He once called my writing “brilliant,” was “honored by it,” and “blown away” by my site and signed up. I’d like to think that’d at least give me a little credibility with his supporters. I’d like to think a lot of things. What does it say to you that across communities where claims of critical thinking are everywhere — I haven’t found it anywhere? Ann Baker’s article beautifully captures what critical thinking is and is not:
“Indeed, nowadays, we tend to take in and repeat whatever the values and beliefs of those around us have rather than forming our own independent thought and stopping to organize and evaluate the information we are receiving.”
I’ve always hated Twitter and every long-form version of it (including the one I’m on right now). When I’m done doing what I gotta do — I’m never goin’ back (not to X or any other). Until then, I’m sending out a certain set of messages looking for intelligent life (fiercely independent thinkers who want to solve problems — not endlessly talk about them).
Think of my signals as a poor man’s SETI: I’ve got an idea — and it’s got teeth. There’s a way we can harness folly from the past for the benefit of the future. A.K.A. learning! Going by the galaxies filled with “rock stars” of reasoning across the social media universe — I should have no shortage of people eager to examine my idea and discuss how we could improve on it and proceed. You tell me where those people are and I’ll gladly send out my signals to them.
If you’re not interested in hearing me out and having meaningful conversation — we have nothing to talk about and I wish you well.
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.
You are being conditioned to do the exact opposite — as all of America has been for decades.
And in truth, a lot longer than that. As Alexander Hamilton beautiful put it:
*********************
To see the character of the government and the country so sported with, exposed to so indelible a blot, puts my heart to the torture. . . . Or what is it that thus torments me at a circumstance so calmly viewed by almost everybody else? Am I a fool, a romantic Quixote, or is there a constitutional defect in the American mind?
Were it not for yourself and a few others, I . . . would say . . . there is something in our climate which belittles every animal, human or brute. . . . I disclose to you without reserve the state of my mind. It is discontented and gloomy in the extreme.
I consider the cause of good government as having been put to an issue and the verdict against it.
— Ron Chernow, Hamilton
*********************
We could do something about that, but you’re busy. You’re always busy. Thank you for your time, but please don’t waste mine. And to make that abundantly clear: If you don’t want to click on either of the links below, that’s your prerogative. But here’s the deal: If you don’t earn my time, you don’t get my time. Anything short of specifically addressing my arguments within one or both of the stories below, and you will not hear from me. And to save you some time, I won’t even read your comment if it’s not within the parameters of that opening quote. The first sentence I see that falls outside that domain; will be the last sentence I see.
If you’re turned off by this — that’s the point (to weed you out).
I beat the hell out of both sides, and if you can’t handle some heat — you don’t qualify (so I don’t need ya). Call me whatever you like, I don’t care. For 20 years, I’ve been practically spit on for following principles those same people promote on a daily basis. When it comes to self-satisfied scorn, I’ve heard it all and I’ve seen it all (and made the most of it by making examples out of hermetically sealed minds).
"When someone presumes I didn't get into MIT without affirmative action, it minimizes my achievements."
There's no more reason to assume you did than to assume that Barack Obama got into Harvard Law that way. This is one of the really insidious things about race-based admissions. You can't prove anyone "deserved" it
Dr. Loury, I've got a question regarding this topic I've been wanting to ask for a while.
I think you will remember a tweet you posted back in 2020 that linked to a YouTube montage of numerous video recordings of that day's events. It created a timeline. That video is no longer available. I believe you have referred to its disappearance on a podcast.
Is there any way we can view that video now? Do you know what happened to it?
In this clip from last August, Loury & McWhorter discuss the following:
"Did Obama, our nation's first black president, waste an unprecedented opportunity to improve race relations while in office? Or, was he the victim of systemic racism in the new age of social media?
@JohnHMcWhorter and I agree to disagree in this week's post at The Glenn Show."
McWhorter is dead 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 racially charged incidents. Of course, social media turbocharged the problem, but POTUS put it on a silver platter for people to do so. Note the token nod to “agree to disagree" (never mind that 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 undeniable.
A lot of that goin' around!
"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, Tucker Carlson Today
When the context suits you, such words are solid gold. What you do when it doesn’t — determines the worth of your word.
People who argue racism was the root opposition to Obama ignore the bitter war republicans waged against the last white southern president Clinton on the 1990’s and white communities who broke for him in 2012. Those very same voters switched to Trump when Obama was no longer on the balllot
And you think I'm arguing that racism was the root opposition to Obama? Perhaps you should have a look around at the material I offered you before you spend 60 seconds "countering" what you think you see.
I wasn’t really arguing that with you , I was pointing it was a de facto defense of Obama to say racism and the facts don’t align with that , I thought I was kind of agreeing with you
Sorry for the misunderstanding. My mistake. But that doesn't change the fact that this is only a tiny slice of what I have to say and why I'm here. Unless you're interested in hearing me out on that (by looking into what I have to say and furthering the discussion from there), we have nothing more to talk about. No offense meant -- it's just that I have a very specific purpose in being here (and that doesn't include transactional exchanges on the topic of the day).
Thank you for the clarification and your civility in making it.
Thank you kindly! I very much appreciate that. I'd appreciate it even more if you'd hear what I have to say on this story below -- that's ultimately about finding our way back to that day (if only to a degree). Even if it's only shades of it -- that would be world away from where we are now.
And believe it or not, it can be done (with a handful of people and hardly any money). But mark my words -- traditional methods have no chance of ever achieving anything of the kind (not even with any amount of money and resources). Everyone is trying to plow through problems when you should be going around them.
Hear me out and all will become clear.
It’s pure fantasy to think that you can ignore key dimensions of a problem and magically solve it. The problems that plague America are interrelated, and anything short of addressing that is going nowhere. But everyone’s wrapped up in 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 cut it. You’ve gotta look at interconnected causes across-the-board. Thanks for your time!
“Oh, You’re So Condescending Your Gall is Never-Ending”:
Does it strike anyone as interesting that we have heard , or should say I have heard , nothing the last few yearsabout police shooting unarmed Black Men? I am not saying that is has not occurred just that it is no longer flavor of the month for either the media or “ social justice warriors “ .
BLM is to Black Americans as is Hamas to the Gazans.
BLM is responsible for riots, burnings, killings and extensive damages to Black communities. I agree with Glenn that their Marxist philosophies are of no benefit to Black communities.
BLM has also twisted the narrative of many of the deaths of Blacks in the hands of police that have little or nothing to do specifically with race, and are oblivious to obvious factors such as drug use, resistance to arrest and the use of weapons by the perpetrators during the arrest attempts.
The deification of criminals by BLM and Liberal organizations is absurd. Anyone's unexpected violent death is tragic, but those individuals that put themselves at risk by criminal behavior are different from innocent people that are killed while minding their own business.
The fact that the BLM leadership are supposedly Marxist, yet apparently live like capitalists is total hypocrisy.
And finally, I also agree with Glenn that separating police accountability by race is unnecessary. Police misbehavior affects all races.
"BLM is to Black Americans as is Hamas to the Gazans."
BLM is nothing like Hamas.
Hamas is the actual government of Palestone, BLM governs nothing.
Hamas is a terrorist organization that recently planned and executed attack that led to the murder, rape, and/or kidnapping of thousands of innocent Israelis. BLM has done nothing even remotely close to that. Before that they have regularly fired rockets into Israel.
Hamas is a top down organization that plans and executes its attacks, BLM isn't like that.
I only ask that you edit that comment to say "The deification of criminals by BLM and Liberal organizations" to read Progressive organizations instead. Progressivism is illiberal. On my political clock, progressivism is above "the constitutional line" which spans before 3:00 on the right and after 9:00 on the left. Everything above that line is political fundamentalism. Liberals are mostly hybrids of liberal and conservative values. Progressivists are ideologues beholden to theories and solutions that don't work. Liberals on the other hand are often bleeding-heart bean counters, something we need more of.
So, deification is bad -- or just bad for people you don't like?
And how about this one:
"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, Tucker Carlson Today
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 rightly talking about the Black Lives Matter manifesto driving the aftermath of George Floyd. But the Left’s ludicrous ways pale in comparison to conservatives going batshit crazy after 9/11. The Right delights in ridiculing the Left for burning buildings to further the cause:
Yet the “party of personal responsibility” set the world ablaze while browbeating anybody out of line in their March of Folly.
McWhorter's right. Anti-Racism has Become Religion -- but fighting that religion has become another religion (and they already belonged to one before that). You think I threw that question in there about deification just for the hell of it?
What’s Wrong With This Picture? The Religion of Ripping on Race & Woke Religions
If that was you post surgery, Glenn, you were looking good! Hope that was not pre recorded and that you are looking so good because you are healing and feeling better each day.
Of course, I agree that BLM has not been positive. Glenn is on-point here. John, as usual, is looking for the "silver lining" in BLM. There is none. It was (and is) a scam. It's a scam led by Black folks, ostensibly on behalf of Black folks, but it's really just for the benefit of the organizers. (This is pretty much chapter-and-verse for most Marxist crap!) One other point, specific to police shooting and killing people.
Over the last five+ years, the Washington Post has maintained a database of this metric. I downloaded the data and analyzed it myself. Given that a picture is worth a thousand words, I would post a picture, but cannot do that on here, as far as I can tell. As such, a description will have to suffice.) The short answer. Police apparently shoot and kill roughly 1000 people PER YEAR. (Interestingly, this number remains roughly consistent dating back to 2015.) Of that number, roughly 15% are Black and 27% are white.
About 60% of all suspects are armed with a gun. WaPo also analyzes the data, and (expectedly) draws conclusions about "the chances of being shot if you are Black" and related. Their methodology for arriving at that conclusion is flawed in my view, but that is beyond my scope for this post. The point I wanted to make is that contrary to what Glenn says, the police do not shoot and kill "a lot more white people" at least not from what I can tell. Then again, maybe almost twice as many is what he means by "a lot more." To be honest, they are not shooting "a lot" of anyone in my view, although one could certainly argue that any death is one too many. (For anyone who wants to check out the WaPo database, along with their analysis and methodology, it can be found here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database)
And when police kill "unarmed" person, how often cops know BEFORE shooting whether that person was armed or not? And in general, how cops can know for sure that a person they confronting is unarmed?
Their overall takeaway is that 1,000 lethal police shootings per year are almost unavoidable. Here's an excerpt:
-- First, the math. “The number of improper, bad shootings is very small,” said Geoffrey Alpert, a professor in the criminal justice department of the University of South Carolina. “The vast majority are not questionable.”
There are some 18,000 police departments in the United States with a population of more than 335 million people, leading to some 50 and 60 million annual encounters between police and civilians, according to an analysis of Justice Department data, said Justin Nix, a criminal justice professor at the University of Nebraska. Nix said only a tiny fraction of those interactions – “we’re talking about some .002% a year” – result in lethal gunfire.
Under present circumstances, he said, the ballpark figure of 1,000 fatal police shootings annually is “baked into the cake,” adding, “You have to wonder what all the reforms can do that would really make a dent in this.”
What’s more, police aren’t exaggerating the lethal threats they face. In 2023, the Washington Post database showed 83% of people killed by police bullets were armed – 62% with a gun and another 15% with a knife – percentages that criminologists said have held steady over the years. In other cases, officers are facing potentially lethal situations with vehicles, or even deranged people charging them with swords, hatchets, or garden tools.
I'm not sure your percentages of lethal police shootings, by race, are accurate. Here are the numbers I got using the filter tools on the left side of the Washington Post site you referenced:
White: 51%
Black: 27%
Hispanic: 18%
Asian: 2%
Native American: 2%
Other: < 1%
I used the full range of data, from 2015 until today, which included 9,268 fatal police shootings.
The National Academy of Sciences published an analysis of the lifetime odds of being killed by law enforcement by age, race, and sex back in 2019:
While there are differences by race, the lifetime odds of anybody being killed by law enforcement are low. Here's an excerpt from the report:
Significance
Police violence is a leading cause of death for young men in the United States. Over the life course, about 1 in every 1,000 black men can expect to be killed by police. Risk of being killed by police peaks between the ages of 20 y and 35 y for men and women and for all racial and ethnic groups. Black women and men and American Indian and Alaska Native women and men are significantly more likely than white women and men to be killed by police. Latino men are also more likely to be killed by police than are white men.
This post from the National Safety Council helps put those numbers in perspective:
The data isn't broken out by race or gender, but the numbers show that the lifetime odds of dying from at least a dozen other causes are worse than the 1 in 1,000 figure for black men being killed by law enforcement. Here are a few examples as of 2021:
Heart disease: 1 in 6
Cancer: 1 in 7
Covid: 1 in 10
All preventable causes of death: 1 in 19
Chronic lower respiratory disease: 1 in 31
You have to go far down the list, to drowning (1 in 1,006) and fire and smoke (1 in 1,287), before you find lifetime odds of death that are comparable to a black male's lifetime odds of dying at the hands of law enforcement.
It's also worth noting the work of Roland Fryer that showed there are racial differences in how police use nonlethal force, but no racial differences in their use of lethal force:
This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force –officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings.
To be fair, not everybody agrees with Roland Fryer. Here's one example:
Quibbles aside, it's clear that the national discussion about race and policing has often been based on faulty assumptions. It may take a while longer, but public perceptions are slowly coming into alignment with data from a number of credible sources.
None of the above is to say society should tolerate police misconduct. That said, the downsides of allowing demagogues to dominate policy discussions about policing and our criminal justice system have been painfully obvious in cities across the country. The violent crime spike that began in the early 2010's and peaked after the death of George Floyd speaks for itself.
I sincerely appreciate your additional analysis! (It is exactly what I hoped to receive.)
I will check my math at some point. I did much of the stats using relatively complex formulas in Excel, so anything is possible. I did not get into the additional factors, which you convey---the number of police encounters, for example. Any way you slice it, given the number of interactions a citizen might have with police, even assuming a small percentage of them involve violence, the numbers of shooting deaths strike both of us as "almost" unavoidable. There is a concept in statistics wherein the only way to change the number of observations requires an environmental modification so severe as to render the quest idiotic. Consider, in order to further lower the number of folks hit by lightning, one might have to restrict people to indoors only, or some such!
In full disclosure, I actually think that the behavior of police with respect to Black folks specifically, and minorities in general, reflects some bias. (Not a shocking discovery, right?) The war on (some) drugs is, in my mind, an excellent example of selective or "targeted" enforcement. Those quibbles aside, one is hard pressed to conclude that police are trying--at least very successfully--to shoot as many Black folk as they can. Or maybe the small numbers we see reflect the best they can do!?!?
Update: The numbers I reported are the fraction of the entire ~1000 that were armed with a gun AND were killed by the police. This, in contrast to the entire dataset. Again, thanks to Clifton Roscoe for the coattail pulling. (Errors in data analysis make it fun!)
Police don't really want to shoot anyone. Even if the shooting victim was a perceived threat, the cop has to live with that the rest of their life. And the red tape is probably a nightmare.
According to Donald J. Robertson's Substack on "Stoicism: Philosophy as a Way of Life": [Marcus Aurelius] Argued that Kindness is More Manly than Anger.
See how far kindness gets you with this crowd (or any other overture in the interest of truth and understanding). Sowell lied about a war that shaped everything you see today — and got off scot-free (as did both parties). Lemme save you some time: The first word that doesn't reflect someone seeking in-depth discussion — will be the last word I read. Thank you 🙏
What Happened to All This Jazz? Sowell & His Mindless Slogan Slingers
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/05/21/what-happened-to-all-this-jazz-sowell-his-mindless-slogan-slingers/
According to Donald J. Robertson's Substack on "Stoicism: Philosophy as a Way of Life": [Marcus Aurelius] Argued that Kindness is More Manly than Anger.
See how far kindness gets you with this crowd (or any other overture in the interest of truth and understanding). Sowell lied about a war that shaped everything you see today — and got off scot-free (as did both parties). Lemme save you some time: The first word that doesn't reflect someone seeking in-depth discussion — will be the last word I read. Thank you 🙏
What Happened to All This Jazz? Sowell & His Mindless Slogan Slingers
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/05/21/what-happened-to-all-this-jazz-sowell-his-mindless-slogan-slingers/
*********************
Shallow thinkers do not think beyond the immediate and the observable. They usually take information at face value and only look at immediate consequences. They are not capable of looking at all sides of an issue or think deeply about the issue before making decisions or drawing conclusions . . .
They also believe that their opinion is based on deep thinking because they genuinely believe that their opinion is based on truth and facts. Whereas, deep thinkers look at the whole sequence of events and the consequences. When we dig deeper, we understand better. We can compare different outcomes, examine, tear apart, and make cognizant judgments that are derived from different mental models.
*********************
Left and Right, I’ve yet to find a single person who digs beyond the depth of their immediate domain of interest. In our entirely transactional times, America endlessly rehashes topics of today — never once considering the totality of events that created them (or even having a notion of the need to). With the issues I address — you might as well be saying the Civil War wasn’t germane to the assassination of Lincoln. As I have an idea that could turn the tide — virtually all conversations on here fit under the umbrella of mine. If you’re not interested in such discovery, let’s not waste each other’s time. Thank you! 🙏
It astounds me that even that courtesy is hard to come by anymore. In a world where timeless truths are “outdated” — a lot of things are hard to come by.
It’s a mighty fine day when you wake up to high praise from a man of Glenn Loury’s caliber — twice! He once called my writing “brilliant,” was “honored by it,” and “blown away” by my site and signed up. I’d like to think that’d at least give me a little credibility with his supporters. I’d like to think a lot of things. What does it say to you that across communities where claims of critical thinking are everywhere — I haven’t found it anywhere? Ann Baker’s article beautifully captures what critical thinking is and is not:
“Indeed, nowadays, we tend to take in and repeat whatever the values and beliefs of those around us have rather than forming our own independent thought and stopping to organize and evaluate the information we are receiving.”
I’ve always hated Twitter and every long-form version of it (including the one I’m on right now). When I’m done doing what I gotta do — I’m never goin’ back (not to X or any other). Until then, I’m sending out a certain set of messages looking for intelligent life (fiercely independent thinkers who want to solve problems — not endlessly talk about them). I’ve got an idea — and it’s got teeth. Going by the galaxies filled with “rock stars” of reasoning across the social media universe — I should have no shortage of people eager to examine my idea and discuss how we could improve on it and proceed.
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.
You are being conditioned to do the exact opposite — as all of America has been for decades.
And in truth, a lot longer than that. As Alexander Hamilton beautiful put it:
*********************
To see the character of the government and the country so sported with, exposed to so indelible a blot, puts my heart to the torture. . . . Or what is it that thus torments me at a circumstance so calmly viewed by almost everybody else? Am I a fool, a romantic Quixote, or is there a constitutional defect in the American mind?
Were it not for yourself and a few others, I . . . would say . . . there is something in our climate which belittles every animal, human or brute. . . . I disclose to you without reserve the state of my mind. It is discontented and gloomy in the extreme.
I consider the cause of good government as having been put to an issue and the verdict against it.
— Ron Chernow, Hamilton
*********************
We could do something about that, but you’re busy. You’re always busy. Thank you for your time, but please don’t waste mine. And to make that abundantly clear: If you don’t want to click on either of the links below, that’s your prerogative. But here’s the deal: If you don’t earn my time, you don’t get my time. Anything short of specifically addressing my arguments within one or both of the stories below, and you will not hear from me. And to save you some time, I won’t even read your comment if it’s not within the parameters of that opening quote. The first sentence I see that falls outside that domain; will be the last sentence I see.
If you’re turned off by this — that’s the point (to weed you out).
I beat the hell out of both sides, and if you can’t handle some heat — you don’t qualify (so I don’t need ya). Call me whatever you like, I don’t care. For 20 years, I’ve been practically spit on for following principles those same people promote on a daily basis. When it comes to self-satisfied scorn, I’ve heard it all and I’ve seen it all (and made the most of it by making examples out of hermetically sealed minds).
This is the larger story I’m out to tell:
From the Earth to the Moon to “WUT”
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/04/24/from-the-earth-to-the-moon-to-wut/
And this is conduit through which I’m out to tell it:
The Critical Thinking of Sowell’s Crowd: Where Even Math is a Matter of Opinion https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/05/12/the-critical-thinking-of-sowells-crowd-where-even-math-is-a-matter-of-opinion/
*********************
Shallow thinkers do not think beyond the immediate and the observable. They usually take information at face value and only look at immediate consequences. They are not capable of looking at all sides of an issue or think deeply about the issue before making decisions or drawing conclusions . . .
They also believe that their opinion is based on deep thinking because they genuinely believe that their opinion is based on truth and facts. Whereas, deep thinkers look at the whole sequence of events and the consequences. When we dig deeper, we understand better. We can compare different outcomes, examine, tear apart, and make cognizant judgments that are derived from different mental models.
*********************
Left and Right, I’ve yet to find a single person who digs beyond the depth of their immediate domain of interest. In our entirely transactional times, America endlessly rehashes topics of today — never once considering the totality of events that created them (or even having a notion of the need to). With the issues I address — you might as well be saying the Civil War wasn’t germane to the assassination of Lincoln. As I have an idea that could turn the tide — virtually all conversations on here fit under the umbrella of mine. If you’re not interested in such discovery, let’s not waste each other’s time. Thank you! 🙏
It astounds me that even that courtesy is hard to come by anymore. In a world where timeless truths are “outdated” — a lot of things are hard to come by.
It’s a mighty fine day when you wake up to high praise from a man of Glenn Loury’s caliber — twice! He once called my writing “brilliant,” was “honored by it,” and “blown away” by my site and signed up. I’d like to think that’d at least give me a little credibility with his supporters. I’d like to think a lot of things. What does it say to you that across communities where claims of critical thinking are everywhere — I haven’t found it anywhere? Ann Baker’s article beautifully captures what critical thinking is and is not:
“Indeed, nowadays, we tend to take in and repeat whatever the values and beliefs of those around us have rather than forming our own independent thought and stopping to organize and evaluate the information we are receiving.”
I’ve always hated Twitter and every long-form version of it (including the one I’m on right now). When I’m done doing what I gotta do — I’m never goin’ back (not to X or any other). Until then, I’m sending out a certain set of messages looking for intelligent life (fiercely independent thinkers who want to solve problems — not endlessly talk about them).
Think of my signals as a poor man’s SETI: I’ve got an idea — and it’s got teeth. There’s a way we can harness folly from the past for the benefit of the future. A.K.A. learning! Going by the galaxies filled with “rock stars” of reasoning across the social media universe — I should have no shortage of people eager to examine my idea and discuss how we could improve on it and proceed. You tell me where those people are and I’ll gladly send out my signals to them.
If you’re not interested in hearing me out and having meaningful conversation — we have nothing to talk about and I wish you well.
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.
You are being conditioned to do the exact opposite — as all of America has been for decades.
And in truth, a lot longer than that. As Alexander Hamilton beautiful put it:
*********************
To see the character of the government and the country so sported with, exposed to so indelible a blot, puts my heart to the torture. . . . Or what is it that thus torments me at a circumstance so calmly viewed by almost everybody else? Am I a fool, a romantic Quixote, or is there a constitutional defect in the American mind?
Were it not for yourself and a few others, I . . . would say . . . there is something in our climate which belittles every animal, human or brute. . . . I disclose to you without reserve the state of my mind. It is discontented and gloomy in the extreme.
I consider the cause of good government as having been put to an issue and the verdict against it.
— Ron Chernow, Hamilton
*********************
We could do something about that, but you’re busy. You’re always busy. Thank you for your time, but please don’t waste mine. And to make that abundantly clear: If you don’t want to click on either of the links below, that’s your prerogative. But here’s the deal: If you don’t earn my time, you don’t get my time. Anything short of specifically addressing my arguments within one or both of the stories below, and you will not hear from me. And to save you some time, I won’t even read your comment if it’s not within the parameters of that opening quote. The first sentence I see that falls outside that domain; will be the last sentence I see.
If you’re turned off by this — that’s the point (to weed you out).
I beat the hell out of both sides, and if you can’t handle some heat — you don’t qualify (so I don’t need ya). Call me whatever you like, I don’t care. For 20 years, I’ve been practically spit on for following principles those same people promote on a daily basis. When it comes to self-satisfied scorn, I’ve heard it all and I’ve seen it all (and made the most of it by making examples out of hermetically sealed minds).
This is the larger story I’m out to tell:
From the Earth to the Moon to “WUT”
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/04/24/from-the-earth-to-the-moon-to-wut/
And this is conduit through which I’m out to tell it:
The Critical Thinking of Sowell’s Crowd: Where Even Math is a Matter of Opinion https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/05/12/the-critical-thinking-of-sowells-crowd-where-even-math-is-a-matter-of-opinion/
"When someone presumes I didn't get into MIT without affirmative action, it minimizes my achievements."
There's no more reason to assume you did than to assume that Barack Obama got into Harvard Law that way. This is one of the really insidious things about race-based admissions. You can't prove anyone "deserved" it
1:49:38 Defunding Federal police is quite different from defunding local police.
Dr. Loury, I've got a question regarding this topic I've been wanting to ask for a while.
I think you will remember a tweet you posted back in 2020 that linked to a YouTube montage of numerous video recordings of that day's events. It created a timeline. That video is no longer available. I believe you have referred to its disappearance on a podcast.
Is there any way we can view that video now? Do you know what happened to it?
I think I responded to the wrong article. I was referring to the George Floyd incident. I'll ask in the next Q&A.
In this clip from last August, Loury & McWhorter discuss the following:
"Did Obama, our nation's first black president, waste an unprecedented opportunity to improve race relations while in office? Or, was he the victim of systemic racism in the new age of social media?
@JohnHMcWhorter and I agree to disagree in this week's post at The Glenn Show."
McWhorter is dead 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 racially charged incidents. Of course, social media turbocharged the problem, but POTUS put it on a silver platter for people to do so. Note the token nod to “agree to disagree" (never mind that 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 undeniable.
A lot of that goin' around!
"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, Tucker Carlson Today
When the context suits you, such words are solid gold. What you do when it doesn’t — determines the worth of your word.
A snapshot of my work on the Trayvon front (and "front" is quite fitting): https://youtu.be/p4hMfZfN8WA
From the Earth to the Moon to “WUT”
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/04/24/from-the-earth-to-the-moon-to-wut/
The Yellow Brick Road: Path of America’s Predictably Counterproductive Pursuits:
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/04/07/the-yellow-brick-road-path-of-americas-predictably-counterproductive-pursuits/
People who argue racism was the root opposition to Obama ignore the bitter war republicans waged against the last white southern president Clinton on the 1990’s and white communities who broke for him in 2012. Those very same voters switched to Trump when Obama was no longer on the balllot
And you think I'm arguing that racism was the root opposition to Obama? Perhaps you should have a look around at the material I offered you before you spend 60 seconds "countering" what you think you see.
I wasn’t really arguing that with you , I was pointing it was a de facto defense of Obama to say racism and the facts don’t align with that , I thought I was kind of agreeing with you
Sorry for the misunderstanding. My mistake. But that doesn't change the fact that this is only a tiny slice of what I have to say and why I'm here. Unless you're interested in hearing me out on that (by looking into what I have to say and furthering the discussion from there), we have nothing more to talk about. No offense meant -- it's just that I have a very specific purpose in being here (and that doesn't include transactional exchanges on the topic of the day).
Thank you for the clarification and your civility in making it.
Wow. That's how we handled things back in the day. A real civil discussion, with opposing views.
Thank you kindly! I very much appreciate that. I'd appreciate it even more if you'd hear what I have to say on this story below -- that's ultimately about finding our way back to that day (if only to a degree). Even if it's only shades of it -- that would be world away from where we are now.
And believe it or not, it can be done (with a handful of people and hardly any money). But mark my words -- traditional methods have no chance of ever achieving anything of the kind (not even with any amount of money and resources). Everyone is trying to plow through problems when you should be going around them.
Hear me out and all will become clear.
It’s pure fantasy to think that you can ignore key dimensions of a problem and magically solve it. The problems that plague America are interrelated, and anything short of addressing that is going nowhere. But everyone’s wrapped up in 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 cut it. You’ve gotta look at interconnected causes across-the-board. Thanks for your time!
“Oh, You’re So Condescending Your Gall is Never-Ending”:
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/05/09/oh-youre-so-condescending-your-gall-is-never-ending/
Does it strike anyone as interesting that we have heard , or should say I have heard , nothing the last few yearsabout police shooting unarmed Black Men? I am not saying that is has not occurred just that it is no longer flavor of the month for either the media or “ social justice warriors “ .
The new flavor for this election cycle is Hamas.
BLM is to Black Americans as is Hamas to the Gazans.
BLM is responsible for riots, burnings, killings and extensive damages to Black communities. I agree with Glenn that their Marxist philosophies are of no benefit to Black communities.
BLM has also twisted the narrative of many of the deaths of Blacks in the hands of police that have little or nothing to do specifically with race, and are oblivious to obvious factors such as drug use, resistance to arrest and the use of weapons by the perpetrators during the arrest attempts.
The deification of criminals by BLM and Liberal organizations is absurd. Anyone's unexpected violent death is tragic, but those individuals that put themselves at risk by criminal behavior are different from innocent people that are killed while minding their own business.
The fact that the BLM leadership are supposedly Marxist, yet apparently live like capitalists is total hypocrisy.
And finally, I also agree with Glenn that separating police accountability by race is unnecessary. Police misbehavior affects all races.
"BLM is to Black Americans as is Hamas to the Gazans."
BLM is nothing like Hamas.
Hamas is the actual government of Palestone, BLM governs nothing.
Hamas is a terrorist organization that recently planned and executed attack that led to the murder, rape, and/or kidnapping of thousands of innocent Israelis. BLM has done nothing even remotely close to that. Before that they have regularly fired rockets into Israel.
Hamas is a top down organization that plans and executes its attacks, BLM isn't like that.
I only ask that you edit that comment to say "The deification of criminals by BLM and Liberal organizations" to read Progressive organizations instead. Progressivism is illiberal. On my political clock, progressivism is above "the constitutional line" which spans before 3:00 on the right and after 9:00 on the left. Everything above that line is political fundamentalism. Liberals are mostly hybrids of liberal and conservative values. Progressivists are ideologues beholden to theories and solutions that don't work. Liberals on the other hand are often bleeding-heart bean counters, something we need more of.
Point taken. I prefer the term “Regressives”.
So, deification is bad -- or just bad for people you don't like?
And how about this one:
"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, Tucker Carlson Today
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 rightly talking about the Black Lives Matter manifesto driving the aftermath of George Floyd. But the Left’s ludicrous ways pale in comparison to conservatives going batshit crazy after 9/11. The Right delights in ridiculing the Left for burning buildings to further the cause:
Yet the “party of personal responsibility” set the world ablaze while browbeating anybody out of line in their March of Folly.
McWhorter's right. Anti-Racism has Become Religion -- but fighting that religion has become another religion (and they already belonged to one before that). You think I threw that question in there about deification just for the hell of it?
What’s Wrong With This Picture? The Religion of Ripping on Race & Woke Religions
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/03/18/whats-wrong-with-this-picture-the-religion-of-ripping-on-race-woke-religions-v2/
If that was you post surgery, Glenn, you were looking good! Hope that was not pre recorded and that you are looking so good because you are healing and feeling better each day.
Of course, I agree that BLM has not been positive. Glenn is on-point here. John, as usual, is looking for the "silver lining" in BLM. There is none. It was (and is) a scam. It's a scam led by Black folks, ostensibly on behalf of Black folks, but it's really just for the benefit of the organizers. (This is pretty much chapter-and-verse for most Marxist crap!) One other point, specific to police shooting and killing people.
Over the last five+ years, the Washington Post has maintained a database of this metric. I downloaded the data and analyzed it myself. Given that a picture is worth a thousand words, I would post a picture, but cannot do that on here, as far as I can tell. As such, a description will have to suffice.) The short answer. Police apparently shoot and kill roughly 1000 people PER YEAR. (Interestingly, this number remains roughly consistent dating back to 2015.) Of that number, roughly 15% are Black and 27% are white.
About 60% of all suspects are armed with a gun. WaPo also analyzes the data, and (expectedly) draws conclusions about "the chances of being shot if you are Black" and related. Their methodology for arriving at that conclusion is flawed in my view, but that is beyond my scope for this post. The point I wanted to make is that contrary to what Glenn says, the police do not shoot and kill "a lot more white people" at least not from what I can tell. Then again, maybe almost twice as many is what he means by "a lot more." To be honest, they are not shooting "a lot" of anyone in my view, although one could certainly argue that any death is one too many. (For anyone who wants to check out the WaPo database, along with their analysis and methodology, it can be found here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database)
And when police kill "unarmed" person, how often cops know BEFORE shooting whether that person was armed or not? And in general, how cops can know for sure that a person they confronting is unarmed?
RealClearInvestigations did an analysis last month that confirms much of what you wrote:
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2024/04/18/why_fatal_police_shootings_arent_declining_some_uncomfortable_facts_1025760.html#!
Their overall takeaway is that 1,000 lethal police shootings per year are almost unavoidable. Here's an excerpt:
-- First, the math. “The number of improper, bad shootings is very small,” said Geoffrey Alpert, a professor in the criminal justice department of the University of South Carolina. “The vast majority are not questionable.”
There are some 18,000 police departments in the United States with a population of more than 335 million people, leading to some 50 and 60 million annual encounters between police and civilians, according to an analysis of Justice Department data, said Justin Nix, a criminal justice professor at the University of Nebraska. Nix said only a tiny fraction of those interactions – “we’re talking about some .002% a year” – result in lethal gunfire.
Under present circumstances, he said, the ballpark figure of 1,000 fatal police shootings annually is “baked into the cake,” adding, “You have to wonder what all the reforms can do that would really make a dent in this.”
What’s more, police aren’t exaggerating the lethal threats they face. In 2023, the Washington Post database showed 83% of people killed by police bullets were armed – 62% with a gun and another 15% with a knife – percentages that criminologists said have held steady over the years. In other cases, officers are facing potentially lethal situations with vehicles, or even deranged people charging them with swords, hatchets, or garden tools.
I'm not sure your percentages of lethal police shootings, by race, are accurate. Here are the numbers I got using the filter tools on the left side of the Washington Post site you referenced:
White: 51%
Black: 27%
Hispanic: 18%
Asian: 2%
Native American: 2%
Other: < 1%
I used the full range of data, from 2015 until today, which included 9,268 fatal police shootings.
The National Academy of Sciences published an analysis of the lifetime odds of being killed by law enforcement by age, race, and sex back in 2019:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1821204116
While there are differences by race, the lifetime odds of anybody being killed by law enforcement are low. Here's an excerpt from the report:
Significance
Police violence is a leading cause of death for young men in the United States. Over the life course, about 1 in every 1,000 black men can expect to be killed by police. Risk of being killed by police peaks between the ages of 20 y and 35 y for men and women and for all racial and ethnic groups. Black women and men and American Indian and Alaska Native women and men are significantly more likely than white women and men to be killed by police. Latino men are also more likely to be killed by police than are white men.
This post from the National Safety Council helps put those numbers in perspective:
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/
The data isn't broken out by race or gender, but the numbers show that the lifetime odds of dying from at least a dozen other causes are worse than the 1 in 1,000 figure for black men being killed by law enforcement. Here are a few examples as of 2021:
Heart disease: 1 in 6
Cancer: 1 in 7
Covid: 1 in 10
All preventable causes of death: 1 in 19
Chronic lower respiratory disease: 1 in 31
You have to go far down the list, to drowning (1 in 1,006) and fire and smoke (1 in 1,287), before you find lifetime odds of death that are comparable to a black male's lifetime odds of dying at the hands of law enforcement.
It's also worth noting the work of Roland Fryer that showed there are racial differences in how police use nonlethal force, but no racial differences in their use of lethal force:
https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/publications/empirical-analysis-racial-differences-police-use-force
Here's the Abstract:
This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force –officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings.
To be fair, not everybody agrees with Roland Fryer. Here's one example:
https://rajivsethi.substack.com/p/on-arrest-filters-and-empirical-inferences-16-07-14
Quibbles aside, it's clear that the national discussion about race and policing has often been based on faulty assumptions. It may take a while longer, but public perceptions are slowly coming into alignment with data from a number of credible sources.
None of the above is to say society should tolerate police misconduct. That said, the downsides of allowing demagogues to dominate policy discussions about policing and our criminal justice system have been painfully obvious in cities across the country. The violent crime spike that began in the early 2010's and peaked after the death of George Floyd speaks for itself.
I sincerely appreciate your additional analysis! (It is exactly what I hoped to receive.)
I will check my math at some point. I did much of the stats using relatively complex formulas in Excel, so anything is possible. I did not get into the additional factors, which you convey---the number of police encounters, for example. Any way you slice it, given the number of interactions a citizen might have with police, even assuming a small percentage of them involve violence, the numbers of shooting deaths strike both of us as "almost" unavoidable. There is a concept in statistics wherein the only way to change the number of observations requires an environmental modification so severe as to render the quest idiotic. Consider, in order to further lower the number of folks hit by lightning, one might have to restrict people to indoors only, or some such!
In full disclosure, I actually think that the behavior of police with respect to Black folks specifically, and minorities in general, reflects some bias. (Not a shocking discovery, right?) The war on (some) drugs is, in my mind, an excellent example of selective or "targeted" enforcement. Those quibbles aside, one is hard pressed to conclude that police are trying--at least very successfully--to shoot as many Black folk as they can. Or maybe the small numbers we see reflect the best they can do!?!?
I don’t think any cop wants to be the next Derek Chauvin.
Update: The numbers I reported are the fraction of the entire ~1000 that were armed with a gun AND were killed by the police. This, in contrast to the entire dataset. Again, thanks to Clifton Roscoe for the coattail pulling. (Errors in data analysis make it fun!)
Police don't really want to shoot anyone. Even if the shooting victim was a perceived threat, the cop has to live with that the rest of their life. And the red tape is probably a nightmare.