Wow! You guys got it and said it! Really courageous. Here is how I would sum it; many blacks, Dems and woke cling to demagoguery bc the data doesn’t match their conclusions and bc it’s so hard for them to admit they depend on their government jobs and government welfare. They are over represented in abortions, crime, welfare and government jobs. Hard to look that shit in the mirror. Btw come to Philly and see first hand!
This is activism. It is not problem solving. It's not even problem discussion. The idea of unpacking issues to get at the underlying causes is anathema to activism. This means that generations from now will be hearing the exact same rhetoric. Activism has no desire to "fix" an issue. Most activists couldn't say what the fix would look like anyway. They are invested in perpetuating the problem or worse, the appearance of a problem. Doing so gives them a pulpit. For the DeAngelo wing, it's how they make a living. For Dyson, it's how he gets invited on tv shows and to conferences. If race was no longer an issue, what would those two and others like them do for their next grift?
John notes that the discussion is barely changed from the mid 1960s. Is any sane person honestly suggesting that nothing has changed since then? Seriously? In the 60s, the country was full of people who had used the "colored only" fountains, facilities, and entryways. There is no one being forced to do that today. In some places, we have the exact opposite going on - areas that are declared as hands-off to white people, as if discrimination is okay if pointed in the other direction, which by the way, pretty much defines affirmative action. Using race as the evaluation criteria is not okay simply because it's used to benefit the "correct" race.
If you want to be taken seriously, then live by the standards that apply to everyone else. That also includes the criticism. There can be no hiding behind race or gender when appropriate criticism is leveled. This persisted throughout Obama's presidency, as if none of predecessors - or his successor, for that matter - ever heard a discouraging word. Of course, they did. They all did. It's part of the job. Criticizing Obama was no more racist than was criticizing Trump or Bush or Clinton or anyone else. You will know when society has made progress on the identity front when a person of some group, any group, is called out for an action or words and no one mentions that person's identity status as an excuse or a deflection.
I went to this talk with Professor John Baugh. First time in a room with a flesh and blood linguist. He talked about the bias of accents with renters and home buyers. He talked about the loss of language during slavery. He took the opportunity to shame anyone who might think slavery wasn’t that bad. The most notable thing was that nobody asked him any good questions. One guy talked about intellectual property law in the, “it’s time for black people to get our own!” sermon, one guy quoted the Bible in front of his kids, one guy amusingly enough suggested whites start talking like blacks as an act of understanding....it was called the 19990s and the 2000s my friend.... I miss em too....anyways I bring up the loss of language during slavery. I say I’m glad he’s brought up, it truly demonstrates a loss beyond comprehension. It’s easy to dismiss the whole concept as racist with this understanding. However, the last hundred years has been the story of Wright, Baldwin, and Angelou; there are many others, I could make a list but I don’t have to. How do we reconcile African American literature as a product of the English language with larger Western Civilization? He complimented my question, added Zora Neale Hurston to the list of writers, and then said something to the effect of, “sometimes when you look outside it’s raining, and sometimes it’s not. Especially in the age of social media.” I like Tolstoy is mine better.
I watch just a bit of tv. When commercials come on with Black people in them, they seem to be carrying on dancing so much of the time. I don't see that as much with Hispanic/Asian/White people.
My imagination or is this something others have noticed?
How about a dialog with John where you discuss the economics of discrimination from the perspectives of Becker, Arrow, and Phelps? In particular, in the Kendi-DiAngelo "all group disparities are due to racism" framework, why are their followers so unsuccessful at arbitraging the racists out of business?
When freedom means expulsion from the meaning you've spent your life making, then freedom is hell. Instincts compel us to seek connections with coalitions of others. Once accepted into the group, one strives to achieve approval and acclaim. Their life depends on the status they achieve. Literally, studies have shown this. "Status syndrome"-a wealthy smoker just one rung below the very top of the status game was more likely to fall ill, as a result of their habit, than the smoker one rung above them. Their life is invested in the con through way of status. If you give up the con, what are you? Race hucksters. To be anything different would take true courage on their part. And they're not courageous. Courage necessitates honesty. It's why some black people in history such as MLK are truly courageous and apart. The content of one's character, not the color of one's skin. It's something I grew up with as a white kid and have never forgot understanding when I was very young without instruction because it seemed like it could be no other way. Not corrupted by adulthood. The simplicity of the sentiment is the why of its importance. It's so simple one matured should not have to state it. And certainly not question or defend it. Those who do feel compelled are hucksters. They are full of shit, and always will be. Some devolve, not evolve.
I’m an affirmative action baby and thank God for that! Unlike Loury and McWhorter, I am not the best or the brightest. I am the second best and second brightest and, because of affirmative action, I have gotten what I merit: a tenure track position at a second-rate university. Discrimination is real, and documented. Without an attempt on the part of my university to hire more women my options would have been at best secretarial. I was the second woman hired for a tenure track position in my department and the first to get tenure—to get a job commensurate to my qualifications, which a comparably qualified second-rate male would have gotten.
Racial discrimination is also real and documented. The best and brightest may beat the system but the second best and brightest, like myself, will not have options comparable to second-rate white males. Government intervention, through the enforcement of passive non-discrimination regulations and the promotion of affirmative action policies, gives second-rate minorities and second-rate women like myself parity with second-rate white males. I don’t have the ability to teach at a first-rate R1 university, much as I wish, and much as I am committed to research and have enjoyed some success. But I can do better than typing and filing or K-12 teaching, which would have been my only options without the enforcement of equal opportunity regulations and the commitment of my university to diversifying the composition of my department which, prior to my arrival, consisted of 17 tenure-track and tenured faculty members, all white males.
John is joking, but this is it. This is exactly it. Only it's not white "people," it's white liberals of a certain type. A type who's always hungry to feel morally superior to other white people, or to be seen as such. They NEED the urban black underclass to remain poor, poorly educated, and on the wrong side of the law. How else are they going to so easily signal their virtue?
This is America’s walk through the wilderness. How is this explained? Certainly not by economics, race theory, DEI or affirmative action. Psychosis, maybe, the racial warriors are hurting their supposed beneficiaries.
Fantastic excerpt. I tend to side with John on what might motivate a student to embrace such a worldview. I don't think it's necessarily insecurity that drives them, but rather the performative stance those students feel is expected of them. A stance guaranteeing hearty praise.
The mention of the New York Times made reminded me of the New York Times piece a few days ago about about the white woman, Black man, and Golden Retriever in Brooklyn's Prospect Park. If you can access the article, it's worth reading. Particularly the comments.
A brief sample: "Real-world ethics question: In a well-used city park, a man with a history of erratic behavior attacks a dog and its owner with a stick; five days later, the dog dies. The man is Black, the dog owner white; the adjoining neighborhood is famously progressive, often critical of the police and jail system. At the same time, crime is up in the neighborhood, with attacks by emotionally disturbed people around the city putting some residents on edge. In a dog-loving, progressive enclave, where pushing law and order can clash with calls for social justice, what’s the right thing to do? How do you protect the public without furthering injustice against this man?"
Furthering injustice? If you say so...
I mentioned the comments because, astonishingly, all of the top-voted comments are calling for, without qualification, the arrest and incarceration of the man. The Times article bravely clings to wokeness, but the progressive NY Times readers are having none of it. The daily horrors against humans didn't move them, but the dog is the straw that broke the camel's back.
One last thing, which I've tried before to shape into a Q&A question. Is not the exaggeration and constant focus on "injustice" a continuing get-out-the-vote strategy for Democrats? If Democrats lose the near monolithic electoral support of Blacks, they will cease to be competitive in presidential elections. I suggest that is the reason underlying John's observation about the practice of exaggeration:
"a critical mass of white people, instead of just a few fellow travelers, are now adopting that way of looking at race issues, too, and giving it their imprimatur."
This was by far one of my favorite responses in 2021, and it sums up the Glenn and John tandem for all these years since the fall season of 2007 when they began their crusade. The Glenn show goes where no other intellectual will go.
There are human beings across this country and this world, who do not take black Americans seriously enough to hold them to real standards like everyone else. It's disgusting!!! People warned me about this stigma a long time ago, and I was fortunate enough to realize it before it was too late. The people who make grade school arguments for the misbehavior of blacks would never hold their own children to those same standards!!! This has been the main problem for several generations. Now you see the price that is paid.
During their last episode of 2018, entitled-What is Third Wave Anti-Racism?, Glenn went in depth about this issue. Most of these black intellectuals are ashamed about the failures and pathology of the black subculture. And that's why they make these childish claims.
Once again, I welcome my fellow subscribers to agree or disagree with me. The link of that older, but great episode is below. Glenn begins to explain at 12:57. Thanks!!
Hey Glenn, John. I think you will appreciate this. https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-are-losing-black-men-moynihan-report-explains-why-opinion-1751712?amp=1
Wow! You guys got it and said it! Really courageous. Here is how I would sum it; many blacks, Dems and woke cling to demagoguery bc the data doesn’t match their conclusions and bc it’s so hard for them to admit they depend on their government jobs and government welfare. They are over represented in abortions, crime, welfare and government jobs. Hard to look that shit in the mirror. Btw come to Philly and see first hand!
More race bating by an American hating, morally depraved, democrat party RASCIST! Nothing new about the spewing of his sewage.
This is activism. It is not problem solving. It's not even problem discussion. The idea of unpacking issues to get at the underlying causes is anathema to activism. This means that generations from now will be hearing the exact same rhetoric. Activism has no desire to "fix" an issue. Most activists couldn't say what the fix would look like anyway. They are invested in perpetuating the problem or worse, the appearance of a problem. Doing so gives them a pulpit. For the DeAngelo wing, it's how they make a living. For Dyson, it's how he gets invited on tv shows and to conferences. If race was no longer an issue, what would those two and others like them do for their next grift?
John notes that the discussion is barely changed from the mid 1960s. Is any sane person honestly suggesting that nothing has changed since then? Seriously? In the 60s, the country was full of people who had used the "colored only" fountains, facilities, and entryways. There is no one being forced to do that today. In some places, we have the exact opposite going on - areas that are declared as hands-off to white people, as if discrimination is okay if pointed in the other direction, which by the way, pretty much defines affirmative action. Using race as the evaluation criteria is not okay simply because it's used to benefit the "correct" race.
If you want to be taken seriously, then live by the standards that apply to everyone else. That also includes the criticism. There can be no hiding behind race or gender when appropriate criticism is leveled. This persisted throughout Obama's presidency, as if none of predecessors - or his successor, for that matter - ever heard a discouraging word. Of course, they did. They all did. It's part of the job. Criticizing Obama was no more racist than was criticizing Trump or Bush or Clinton or anyone else. You will know when society has made progress on the identity front when a person of some group, any group, is called out for an action or words and no one mentions that person's identity status as an excuse or a deflection.
I went to this talk with Professor John Baugh. First time in a room with a flesh and blood linguist. He talked about the bias of accents with renters and home buyers. He talked about the loss of language during slavery. He took the opportunity to shame anyone who might think slavery wasn’t that bad. The most notable thing was that nobody asked him any good questions. One guy talked about intellectual property law in the, “it’s time for black people to get our own!” sermon, one guy quoted the Bible in front of his kids, one guy amusingly enough suggested whites start talking like blacks as an act of understanding....it was called the 19990s and the 2000s my friend.... I miss em too....anyways I bring up the loss of language during slavery. I say I’m glad he’s brought up, it truly demonstrates a loss beyond comprehension. It’s easy to dismiss the whole concept as racist with this understanding. However, the last hundred years has been the story of Wright, Baldwin, and Angelou; there are many others, I could make a list but I don’t have to. How do we reconcile African American literature as a product of the English language with larger Western Civilization? He complimented my question, added Zora Neale Hurston to the list of writers, and then said something to the effect of, “sometimes when you look outside it’s raining, and sometimes it’s not. Especially in the age of social media.” I like Tolstoy is mine better.
Question:
I watch just a bit of tv. When commercials come on with Black people in them, they seem to be carrying on dancing so much of the time. I don't see that as much with Hispanic/Asian/White people.
My imagination or is this something others have noticed?
Glenn:
How about a dialog with John where you discuss the economics of discrimination from the perspectives of Becker, Arrow, and Phelps? In particular, in the Kendi-DiAngelo "all group disparities are due to racism" framework, why are their followers so unsuccessful at arbitraging the racists out of business?
When freedom means expulsion from the meaning you've spent your life making, then freedom is hell. Instincts compel us to seek connections with coalitions of others. Once accepted into the group, one strives to achieve approval and acclaim. Their life depends on the status they achieve. Literally, studies have shown this. "Status syndrome"-a wealthy smoker just one rung below the very top of the status game was more likely to fall ill, as a result of their habit, than the smoker one rung above them. Their life is invested in the con through way of status. If you give up the con, what are you? Race hucksters. To be anything different would take true courage on their part. And they're not courageous. Courage necessitates honesty. It's why some black people in history such as MLK are truly courageous and apart. The content of one's character, not the color of one's skin. It's something I grew up with as a white kid and have never forgot understanding when I was very young without instruction because it seemed like it could be no other way. Not corrupted by adulthood. The simplicity of the sentiment is the why of its importance. It's so simple one matured should not have to state it. And certainly not question or defend it. Those who do feel compelled are hucksters. They are full of shit, and always will be. Some devolve, not evolve.
I’m an affirmative action baby and thank God for that! Unlike Loury and McWhorter, I am not the best or the brightest. I am the second best and second brightest and, because of affirmative action, I have gotten what I merit: a tenure track position at a second-rate university. Discrimination is real, and documented. Without an attempt on the part of my university to hire more women my options would have been at best secretarial. I was the second woman hired for a tenure track position in my department and the first to get tenure—to get a job commensurate to my qualifications, which a comparably qualified second-rate male would have gotten.
Racial discrimination is also real and documented. The best and brightest may beat the system but the second best and brightest, like myself, will not have options comparable to second-rate white males. Government intervention, through the enforcement of passive non-discrimination regulations and the promotion of affirmative action policies, gives second-rate minorities and second-rate women like myself parity with second-rate white males. I don’t have the ability to teach at a first-rate R1 university, much as I wish, and much as I am committed to research and have enjoyed some success. But I can do better than typing and filing or K-12 teaching, which would have been my only options without the enforcement of equal opportunity regulations and the commitment of my university to diversifying the composition of my department which, prior to my arrival, consisted of 17 tenure-track and tenured faculty members, all white males.
“ Because white people like it when we jam.”
Hahahahaha!
"Because white people like it when we jam."
John is joking, but this is it. This is exactly it. Only it's not white "people," it's white liberals of a certain type. A type who's always hungry to feel morally superior to other white people, or to be seen as such. They NEED the urban black underclass to remain poor, poorly educated, and on the wrong side of the law. How else are they going to so easily signal their virtue?
This is America’s walk through the wilderness. How is this explained? Certainly not by economics, race theory, DEI or affirmative action. Psychosis, maybe, the racial warriors are hurting their supposed beneficiaries.
Fantastic excerpt. I tend to side with John on what might motivate a student to embrace such a worldview. I don't think it's necessarily insecurity that drives them, but rather the performative stance those students feel is expected of them. A stance guaranteeing hearty praise.
The mention of the New York Times made reminded me of the New York Times piece a few days ago about about the white woman, Black man, and Golden Retriever in Brooklyn's Prospect Park. If you can access the article, it's worth reading. Particularly the comments.
A brief sample: "Real-world ethics question: In a well-used city park, a man with a history of erratic behavior attacks a dog and its owner with a stick; five days later, the dog dies. The man is Black, the dog owner white; the adjoining neighborhood is famously progressive, often critical of the police and jail system. At the same time, crime is up in the neighborhood, with attacks by emotionally disturbed people around the city putting some residents on edge. In a dog-loving, progressive enclave, where pushing law and order can clash with calls for social justice, what’s the right thing to do? How do you protect the public without furthering injustice against this man?"
Furthering injustice? If you say so...
I mentioned the comments because, astonishingly, all of the top-voted comments are calling for, without qualification, the arrest and incarceration of the man. The Times article bravely clings to wokeness, but the progressive NY Times readers are having none of it. The daily horrors against humans didn't move them, but the dog is the straw that broke the camel's back.
One last thing, which I've tried before to shape into a Q&A question. Is not the exaggeration and constant focus on "injustice" a continuing get-out-the-vote strategy for Democrats? If Democrats lose the near monolithic electoral support of Blacks, they will cease to be competitive in presidential elections. I suggest that is the reason underlying John's observation about the practice of exaggeration:
"a critical mass of white people, instead of just a few fellow travelers, are now adopting that way of looking at race issues, too, and giving it their imprimatur."
The Losing Hand
This was by far one of my favorite responses in 2021, and it sums up the Glenn and John tandem for all these years since the fall season of 2007 when they began their crusade. The Glenn show goes where no other intellectual will go.
There are human beings across this country and this world, who do not take black Americans seriously enough to hold them to real standards like everyone else. It's disgusting!!! People warned me about this stigma a long time ago, and I was fortunate enough to realize it before it was too late. The people who make grade school arguments for the misbehavior of blacks would never hold their own children to those same standards!!! This has been the main problem for several generations. Now you see the price that is paid.
During their last episode of 2018, entitled-What is Third Wave Anti-Racism?, Glenn went in depth about this issue. Most of these black intellectuals are ashamed about the failures and pathology of the black subculture. And that's why they make these childish claims.
Once again, I welcome my fellow subscribers to agree or disagree with me. The link of that older, but great episode is below. Glenn begins to explain at 12:57. Thanks!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWHQOSzU_Ug&t=683s