Yikes. I would have thought Glenn's listeners would be better able to handle ideas they disagree with without resorting to ad hominem attacks. I'm just a person -- a producer and conceptual artist, mom with two kids, full-time job, deep faith in humanity, maybe a little judgmental but something I can work on. Gotta say I'm disappointed by many of your comments. Le Sigh.
For the record....we realized after the episode aired that we didn't give proper context for our conversation. Glenn invited me onto his show to interview *him*, the way I'd done on the Reckonings podcast in 2015: https://www.reckonings.show/episodes/5-pt2
That context has now been added to the description of the episode.
Lepp seems to imply that Glenn has to change what he offers because the “others” he might offend or trigger or cause to think critically should not be pushed out of their comfort zone. As if the world needs to coddle them and give credence to the entitlement they feel they deserve as card-carrying members of the post-modern deconstructionist army, rather than to offer them constructive narratives and worldviews that will bring us together in equality and prosperity for all.
DON’T CHANGE A THING, GLENN! You give this political progressive hope that sanity and intelligence and constructive change will prevail.
I understand her general stance. It's in principle not very far off from any typical moderate centrist: There are good and bad ideas on all sides and we should just pick the good ones from wherever they come and role with them.
However, she seems to have an incredibly idealistic view on this entire concept. Rejecting anything as completely bad, doesn't compute. One has to always find positive aspects and verbalize them alongside the negative. This just feels a bit too much like what my primary school teacher would tell us when we were commenting on another student's work.
When it comes to her own personal views, she isn't practicing what she preaches, though. "We definitely can't lose God" sounds like a pretty absolute statement, which many listeners will disagree with. How are an atheist (or an antitheist) and she herself supposed to settle this debate in accordance with her own philosophy? Those venn diagrams aren't going to overlap very much – if at all – and there is no way to settle this difference without one person entirely changing their view.
In my opinion, Glenn has all the right to air his frustrations with the debate around the topic of race. Laying out his actual thoughts, without diluting them with fabricated doubt or relativizations, is what he is great at and what I'm coming back for again and again.
It's not Glenn's responsibility to spoon-feed his listeners a fully formed worldview. We're all building one ourselves – in part, with the help of Glenn's critiques and ideas. Anybody who is intellectually able to follow Glenn's discussions, surely has many other sources of cultural input which inform their worldview and which probably often clash with Glenn's views. If people don't have that, it's their responsibility to acquire it, not Glenn's.
Glenn, keep doing what you like to do. It's great.
I think the problem with Stephanie's argument is that you can't know all the consequences that might follow either from saying something or declining to say it. In the end, all you can really do is speak the truth as you see it and let the chips fall where they will.
A 9 year old is not a defective 12 year old, but when a 12 year old misses developmental milestones - or worse yet, regresses behaviorally - that's cause for concern. Statements like "affirmative action is wrong", which Stephanie thinks are irresponsible, aren't *gone* if you adopt her mindset of "evolving values". They just undergo a linguistic shift, and become "affirmative action is regressive".
So let's say we adopt her viewpoint - what then? She still has to ask herself: is affirmative action and demands for special treatment taking America forward, or backward? She can't dodge these questions forever. And as uncharitable as it might be, I think she's exhibiting some intellectual cowardice by trying to avoid them.
Speak the truth as you see it. Seek the truth where you can find it. Live not by lies!
This discussion took some wrestling. What resonated with me is how things come into better focus as one gets older and therefore one’s ability to articulate more effectively on a matter will improve with time.
Hey Glenn, I think many of the questions she asked you to explore are worth getting straight on in your own mind, and thanks for letting us listen in! Once you are clear, please continue doing what you have been. Honestly wrestling with these issues is difficult and not enough people are willing to do it with the credibility, integrity, and passion that you do. Thank you.
I disagreed with Lepp’s frame that Loury is “identifying a situation where something doesn’t work” (or something like that). While she seems to understand the concept of trade offs, she clearly thinks that there is a “we” that agrees and is making decisions and hasn’t thought hard enough about how it is that temporary workarounds become permanent fixtures.
She seems nice enough. But I’d need to hear more about how her Pragmatic vision isn’t going to simply compromise all values that matter.
Stephanie: "You [Glenn] are already leading us. The difference is whether you are taking responsibility for where you are leading us. We are being led right now."
That's a voice of our time. It's a follower calling you to take responsibility as a leader, and to alter your voice in order to deliver your followers [whoever they may be] [to where?].
Followers. Following. (uggh)
Their "leaders," if you can call them that, are essentially super-followers who ascend the social network to a position of "influencer." It all aggregates into a societal scale case of followers leading followers, all earnestly engaged in the singular highest life goal of not doing The Wrong Thing.
Some of us, Glenn, aren't followers. We're just listeners who are trying to figure our way. An honest, meaningful assessment is all you can do for me. Where I go with that is on me. (We don't criticize "to uplift." We criticize to draw ourselves closer to accurate understanding.)
I need you, Glenn, to continue to stay on your point as you have. By modeling rational thinking and behavior, exquisitely as you do, you remind me and thousands of people like me that there are somewhat like-minded people with respect to some matters here, important matters, that we need to articulate more clearly at the larger scale of our society. I'm fighting these battles alone in my own little neck of the woods, and as people give me that fear-driven mix of concern and pity (like Stephanie gave you at 1:50 https://youtu.be/IYcuaYokRfE?t=110), I am reminded that many of my concerns are held by a lot of thoughtful, rational, caring people around the world. In this case, in these matters, our likenesses become visible through some focal points, like you, Glenn.
But just for fun, let's take a moment to imagine all those ill-minded people (e.g. "white supremacists") who are now Glenn Loury "followers." How do they find solace in your message, Glenn? The answer is: they don't. Your message is too reasonable and nuanced to suit any of them. (It lacks evil villains, for one.)
Stay on your point. And I will stay on mine. (And I know that others commenting here will similarly stay on theirs.)
Please Glenn, keep doing your "primary responsibility, which is to tell the truth as I see it."
But Stephanie's GREAT question remains: "What is [your] goal as a public intellectual?"
(I'm just a public intellectual wannabe, but it's a question for all commenters, too.)
Everybody chooses what truths to focus on; your focus on the "Truth about Affirmative Action", as compared to a bunch of BS lies, a very dishonest MSM consensus, is pretty important in America today.
The reality of Black cognitive ability difference in comparison to White, Asian, & Hispanics, and what laws and policies should that difference lead to, is the single most important issue in America.
Stephanie wants to help you become a better leader in discussing the truth (your goal), or maybe changing reality (with magic thinking?) (her goal?).
My suggestion is that you follow the example of Jesus and create some parables to help you illustrate your truth.
<Example (you're free to copy, change, improve!)>
Is the NBA racist? Are there as many Hispanics as Blacks in the NBA? No, obviously not as many, maybe none, even tho there are more US Hispanics than Blacks.
Why not?
Is it genetics? Parents? SES (socio-economic status)? Individual will power (Hispanics too lazy to play enough hoops?). Doesn't this prove racism?
Anybody who thinks the NBA is not racist, despite almost no Hispanics, needs to consider why they reject racism as an explanation for disparate NBA impacts between Blacks & Hispanics. Those reasons should also apply to US society.
</Example>
Another strong suggestion - look for alternatives to AA for helping people who can use help. Ask John, and Stephanie & other guests, what other policies they think might work better than what we've been doing since '64 (ok, AA really started more from Nixon around '70), for 50+ years.
Pay poor girls who do NOT get pregnant until married some cash from ages 14-24; for those who get married, same (or more?) money when they do have kids.
70% of Black kids; 30% of White kids are being raised, sub-optimally, by non-married parents (90+% mothers).
</Example>
I find replacing "morality" with "optimally" seems pretty effective and true.
What makes a good or bad policy good or bad? Results? Intentions? Unintended but actual results?
Incentives matter, so we need more good incentives for good behavior - because it's too mean to accept, support, or advocate for more punishment/ bad results for bad behavior.
Humans have the ability to change their behavior. Those with bad results have the most responsibility to change their behavior the most.
I would agree with many of the sentiments expressed here. True solutions are hard to come by. The important first step is to have a plurality agree on what the problem actually is, and this is where Glenn shines. Unfortunately until a lot of people accept some truths about human nature and incentives, we will likely continue with these disparities. True solutions will come from markets and grassroots initiatives. And they will likely be unexpected. Diktats from above (ie government programs) hardly ever work, largely because they are based on a utopian vision of human nature. So keep on speaking truth to power Glenn. Rant on!
“We know they are lying, they know they are lying, they know we know they are lying, we know they know we know they are lying, but they are still lying.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
I wish Stephanie Lepp were saying these things to Robin diAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi. Or haul Madison Grant out of the grave, give him a good shake, and say: "Look what you did, being an irresponsible intellectual!" But Glenn Loury is a responsible intellectual--very.
"The more reason to get curious about how to use your influence to move us in a fruitful direction, what you consider to be a fruitful direction."
I disagree with her almost completely.
You are free to speak in any way you choose and say anything you choose. Success does not place requirements on your God-given right to speak. Not ever.
You're free to persuade me to agree with you. I may or may not, but you get to say and do whatever you like in order to persuade me.
CNN and the other propagandists "got curious" about using their influence to "move" us to believe lies. Because they believed wholeheartedly in the good their lies would do if they could just "move" all of us to get the shot, et al.
Please, Glenn, stay authentic. If you start "getting curious" we will know, and we'll run away from. Please, if this woman is your friend, don't let her "move" you into being a lying prog.
Yikes. I would have thought Glenn's listeners would be better able to handle ideas they disagree with without resorting to ad hominem attacks. I'm just a person -- a producer and conceptual artist, mom with two kids, full-time job, deep faith in humanity, maybe a little judgmental but something I can work on. Gotta say I'm disappointed by many of your comments. Le Sigh.
For the record....we realized after the episode aired that we didn't give proper context for our conversation. Glenn invited me onto his show to interview *him*, the way I'd done on the Reckonings podcast in 2015: https://www.reckonings.show/episodes/5-pt2
That context has now been added to the description of the episode.
Lepp seems to imply that Glenn has to change what he offers because the “others” he might offend or trigger or cause to think critically should not be pushed out of their comfort zone. As if the world needs to coddle them and give credence to the entitlement they feel they deserve as card-carrying members of the post-modern deconstructionist army, rather than to offer them constructive narratives and worldviews that will bring us together in equality and prosperity for all.
DON’T CHANGE A THING, GLENN! You give this political progressive hope that sanity and intelligence and constructive change will prevail.
I understand her general stance. It's in principle not very far off from any typical moderate centrist: There are good and bad ideas on all sides and we should just pick the good ones from wherever they come and role with them.
However, she seems to have an incredibly idealistic view on this entire concept. Rejecting anything as completely bad, doesn't compute. One has to always find positive aspects and verbalize them alongside the negative. This just feels a bit too much like what my primary school teacher would tell us when we were commenting on another student's work.
When it comes to her own personal views, she isn't practicing what she preaches, though. "We definitely can't lose God" sounds like a pretty absolute statement, which many listeners will disagree with. How are an atheist (or an antitheist) and she herself supposed to settle this debate in accordance with her own philosophy? Those venn diagrams aren't going to overlap very much – if at all – and there is no way to settle this difference without one person entirely changing their view.
In my opinion, Glenn has all the right to air his frustrations with the debate around the topic of race. Laying out his actual thoughts, without diluting them with fabricated doubt or relativizations, is what he is great at and what I'm coming back for again and again.
It's not Glenn's responsibility to spoon-feed his listeners a fully formed worldview. We're all building one ourselves – in part, with the help of Glenn's critiques and ideas. Anybody who is intellectually able to follow Glenn's discussions, surely has many other sources of cultural input which inform their worldview and which probably often clash with Glenn's views. If people don't have that, it's their responsibility to acquire it, not Glenn's.
Glenn, keep doing what you like to do. It's great.
I think the problem with Stephanie's argument is that you can't know all the consequences that might follow either from saying something or declining to say it. In the end, all you can really do is speak the truth as you see it and let the chips fall where they will.
A 9 year old is not a defective 12 year old, but when a 12 year old misses developmental milestones - or worse yet, regresses behaviorally - that's cause for concern. Statements like "affirmative action is wrong", which Stephanie thinks are irresponsible, aren't *gone* if you adopt her mindset of "evolving values". They just undergo a linguistic shift, and become "affirmative action is regressive".
So let's say we adopt her viewpoint - what then? She still has to ask herself: is affirmative action and demands for special treatment taking America forward, or backward? She can't dodge these questions forever. And as uncharitable as it might be, I think she's exhibiting some intellectual cowardice by trying to avoid them.
Speak the truth as you see it. Seek the truth where you can find it. Live not by lies!
This discussion took some wrestling. What resonated with me is how things come into better focus as one gets older and therefore one’s ability to articulate more effectively on a matter will improve with time.
Hey Glenn, I think many of the questions she asked you to explore are worth getting straight on in your own mind, and thanks for letting us listen in! Once you are clear, please continue doing what you have been. Honestly wrestling with these issues is difficult and not enough people are willing to do it with the credibility, integrity, and passion that you do. Thank you.
I disagreed with Lepp’s frame that Loury is “identifying a situation where something doesn’t work” (or something like that). While she seems to understand the concept of trade offs, she clearly thinks that there is a “we” that agrees and is making decisions and hasn’t thought hard enough about how it is that temporary workarounds become permanent fixtures.
She seems nice enough. But I’d need to hear more about how her Pragmatic vision isn’t going to simply compromise all values that matter.
Stephanie: "You [Glenn] are already leading us. The difference is whether you are taking responsibility for where you are leading us. We are being led right now."
That's a voice of our time. It's a follower calling you to take responsibility as a leader, and to alter your voice in order to deliver your followers [whoever they may be] [to where?].
Followers. Following. (uggh)
Their "leaders," if you can call them that, are essentially super-followers who ascend the social network to a position of "influencer." It all aggregates into a societal scale case of followers leading followers, all earnestly engaged in the singular highest life goal of not doing The Wrong Thing.
Some of us, Glenn, aren't followers. We're just listeners who are trying to figure our way. An honest, meaningful assessment is all you can do for me. Where I go with that is on me. (We don't criticize "to uplift." We criticize to draw ourselves closer to accurate understanding.)
I need you, Glenn, to continue to stay on your point as you have. By modeling rational thinking and behavior, exquisitely as you do, you remind me and thousands of people like me that there are somewhat like-minded people with respect to some matters here, important matters, that we need to articulate more clearly at the larger scale of our society. I'm fighting these battles alone in my own little neck of the woods, and as people give me that fear-driven mix of concern and pity (like Stephanie gave you at 1:50 https://youtu.be/IYcuaYokRfE?t=110), I am reminded that many of my concerns are held by a lot of thoughtful, rational, caring people around the world. In this case, in these matters, our likenesses become visible through some focal points, like you, Glenn.
But just for fun, let's take a moment to imagine all those ill-minded people (e.g. "white supremacists") who are now Glenn Loury "followers." How do they find solace in your message, Glenn? The answer is: they don't. Your message is too reasonable and nuanced to suit any of them. (It lacks evil villains, for one.)
Stay on your point. And I will stay on mine. (And I know that others commenting here will similarly stay on theirs.)
“To knock a thing down, especially if it is cocked at an arrogant angle, is a deep delight of the blood.”
George Santayana
TLDR: “I enjoyed the conflict.” Glenn Loury
Please Glenn, keep doing your "primary responsibility, which is to tell the truth as I see it."
But Stephanie's GREAT question remains: "What is [your] goal as a public intellectual?"
(I'm just a public intellectual wannabe, but it's a question for all commenters, too.)
Everybody chooses what truths to focus on; your focus on the "Truth about Affirmative Action", as compared to a bunch of BS lies, a very dishonest MSM consensus, is pretty important in America today.
The reality of Black cognitive ability difference in comparison to White, Asian, & Hispanics, and what laws and policies should that difference lead to, is the single most important issue in America.
Stephanie wants to help you become a better leader in discussing the truth (your goal), or maybe changing reality (with magic thinking?) (her goal?).
My suggestion is that you follow the example of Jesus and create some parables to help you illustrate your truth.
<Example (you're free to copy, change, improve!)>
Is the NBA racist? Are there as many Hispanics as Blacks in the NBA? No, obviously not as many, maybe none, even tho there are more US Hispanics than Blacks.
Why not?
Is it genetics? Parents? SES (socio-economic status)? Individual will power (Hispanics too lazy to play enough hoops?). Doesn't this prove racism?
Anybody who thinks the NBA is not racist, despite almost no Hispanics, needs to consider why they reject racism as an explanation for disparate NBA impacts between Blacks & Hispanics. Those reasons should also apply to US society.
</Example>
Another strong suggestion - look for alternatives to AA for helping people who can use help. Ask John, and Stephanie & other guests, what other policies they think might work better than what we've been doing since '64 (ok, AA really started more from Nixon around '70), for 50+ years.
[Socialist Freddie DeBoer wrote The Cult of Smart - maybe talk with him https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/]
<my Example possible policy>
Pay poor girls who do NOT get pregnant until married some cash from ages 14-24; for those who get married, same (or more?) money when they do have kids.
70% of Black kids; 30% of White kids are being raised, sub-optimally, by non-married parents (90+% mothers).
</Example>
I find replacing "morality" with "optimally" seems pretty effective and true.
What makes a good or bad policy good or bad? Results? Intentions? Unintended but actual results?
Incentives matter, so we need more good incentives for good behavior - because it's too mean to accept, support, or advocate for more punishment/ bad results for bad behavior.
Humans have the ability to change their behavior. Those with bad results have the most responsibility to change their behavior the most.
I would agree with many of the sentiments expressed here. True solutions are hard to come by. The important first step is to have a plurality agree on what the problem actually is, and this is where Glenn shines. Unfortunately until a lot of people accept some truths about human nature and incentives, we will likely continue with these disparities. True solutions will come from markets and grassroots initiatives. And they will likely be unexpected. Diktats from above (ie government programs) hardly ever work, largely because they are based on a utopian vision of human nature. So keep on speaking truth to power Glenn. Rant on!
“We know they are lying, they know they are lying, they know we know they are lying, we know they know we know they are lying, but they are still lying.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
I wish Stephanie Lepp were saying these things to Robin diAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi. Or haul Madison Grant out of the grave, give him a good shake, and say: "Look what you did, being an irresponsible intellectual!" But Glenn Loury is a responsible intellectual--very.
"The more reason to get curious about how to use your influence to move us in a fruitful direction, what you consider to be a fruitful direction."
I disagree with her almost completely.
You are free to speak in any way you choose and say anything you choose. Success does not place requirements on your God-given right to speak. Not ever.
You're free to persuade me to agree with you. I may or may not, but you get to say and do whatever you like in order to persuade me.
CNN and the other propagandists "got curious" about using their influence to "move" us to believe lies. Because they believed wholeheartedly in the good their lies would do if they could just "move" all of us to get the shot, et al.
Please, Glenn, stay authentic. If you start "getting curious" we will know, and we'll run away from. Please, if this woman is your friend, don't let her "move" you into being a lying prog.
Damn, if everybody could vent as intelligently as you the world would be a better place just from all the breaths of fresh air. Don't change a thing.