I'm not here for that discussion, I'm here for this one:
As I have an idea that could turn the tide (which would serve your interests whether I agree with them or not): 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. Thx 🙏
***************
If evidence claimed as components for building a nuclear bomb isn’t worthy of consideration, what is? There was a time when people saying, “Show Me the Evidence” — would look at it when you did. Those days are long gone — eradicated by a world where authenticity amounts to flooding the internet with catchy quotes promoting principles you abandon the second they’re inconvenient. Then crank out the hate-card when called to account, because you damn sure don’t have an argument.
The Critical Thinking of Sowell’s Crowd: Where Even Math is a Matter of Opinion
What part of this do you not understand? "All conversations on here fit under the umbrella of mine." But you people never understand anything -- making it impossible to have this conversation anywhere. Now, mind your own business and don't waste my time again.
To the extent that I read the post you are questioning Thomas Sowell worshipers because Sowell was wrong about Iraq having WMD and has not apologized. I do not take Glenn Loury for a Thomas Sowell worshiper and have no idea if he was wrong about Iraq.
Thank you for that reply and for taking a look-see. Glenn Loury once called my writing "brilliant," was "honored by it," and "blown away" by my site and signed up. Alas, he wasn't too keen on the truth when I took his hero to task. So, you're wrong about Loury -- and everyone is wrong about Sowell (and that -- is an opportunity). What does it say to you for over 3 years -- I've been practically spit on by people promoting principles I followed to find Sowell didn't?
As stated on my site:
**********
I’m sure it’s intoxicating to amass a following and feel like you’re making a difference. But I’m gonna weigh your impact partly as a reflection of your community: How people behave, not what they believe. If you can’t get that right, I don’t care how big your following gets — you’re taking this nation nowhere.
**********
McWhorter's right -- anti-racism has become religion. But fighting that religion has become another religion.
What’s Wrong With This Picture? The Religion of Ripping on Race & Woke Religions
Not sure this is religious belief as much as people choosing the one designated Black person they are going to listen to and being entirely lost if that Black person is a flawed human being. Clearly Glenn Loury does not have this problem. If Loury says that he respects Sowell because of his books then Loury is saying that the books had arguments that were helpful to him not that Sowell is perfect.
I would add to that the it's not illogical nor hypocritical to agree with some things a person has said or written, without also endorsing everything they ever wrote to said in their lifetime. (Even leaving aside aspects of their personal lives, and focusing on just their intellectual output).
A common example today is when people cite MLK, Jr's "I have a dream" sentiment, and then others pick out something else that the MLK,Jr said and imply that the first group are hypocritical to cite MLK, Jr on anything unless they agree with everything he ever said. (In the latter case, it's common to cite something that MLK, Jr said about riots - failing to include the following paragraph, however).
That's more of a "gotcha" tactic, than an honest search for knowledge.
If I find something wise or insightful from some author of the past or present, I may highlight that specific thing - without implying that I thereby agree with everything that author has ever said or done. And in the other direction, if anything I've ever written resonates well with a group of people, I don't expect that means they thereby have to agree with everything I've ever said (or will say), nor with my life choices.
This is not about "perfection" -- it's about Sowell having a history wildly out of sync with his sanctimonious claims (and not just on WMD). That puts his credibility in question on everything else. And as I told Loury 3 years ago: If you're not going to consider evidence that flies in the face of your beliefs, what business do you have expecting anyone else to?
From my site:
**************
Thomas Sowell’s disciples say he does one thing and I’m showing you that sometimes he does another (which brings his credibility into question on everything else). Does that mean he’s wrong on everything else? Did I say that? I’m not even implying it — I’m simply saying his credibility is in question.
And that anyone with a history wildly out of sync with their sanctimonious claims — should not be put a pedestal as a bastion of virtue.
But that story about blind belief — is a conduit for telling a larger story about blind belief. And I don’t care whether it’s about this guy or that guy: It’s dumb, dishonest, delusional, destructive, dangerous, and deadly.
. . .
Alas, we live in a world that would rather split hairs over semantics than consider the spirit of an argument. Whether or not it’s literally “religion” is not the point — it’s faith-based belief that has no bearing on reality:
A.K.A. Wishful Thinking
The same wishful thinking that’s utterly oblivious to the counterproductive nature of endlessly beating issues into the ground in entirely transactional tactics. Repeatedly rehashing issues is not the mark of problem solving: It’s the mark of a market. All these channels are blunt instruments (including those I agree with).
Like Black Lives Matter — you’re just pounding away at problems without any examination of the efficacy of your efforts.
**************
Lastly, you've been polite and I appreciate it. It speaks well of you that you followed up in such ways after our initial exchange. That's exceedingly rare these days. All that aside, as I told another person in here (so you'll know it's not personal toward you anyone else):
****************
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).
I'm not here for that discussion, I'm here for this one:
As I have an idea that could turn the tide (which would serve your interests whether I agree with them or not): 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. Thx 🙏
***************
If evidence claimed as components for building a nuclear bomb isn’t worthy of consideration, what is? There was a time when people saying, “Show Me the Evidence” — would look at it when you did. Those days are long gone — eradicated by a world where authenticity amounts to flooding the internet with catchy quotes promoting principles you abandon the second they’re inconvenient. Then crank out the hate-card when called to account, because you damn sure don’t have an argument.
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/
***************
This comment is in the wrong conversation
What part of this do you not understand? "All conversations on here fit under the umbrella of mine." But you people never understand anything -- making it impossible to have this conversation anywhere. Now, mind your own business and don't waste my time again.
To the extent that I read the post you are questioning Thomas Sowell worshipers because Sowell was wrong about Iraq having WMD and has not apologized. I do not take Glenn Loury for a Thomas Sowell worshiper and have no idea if he was wrong about Iraq.
Thank you for that reply and for taking a look-see. Glenn Loury once called my writing "brilliant," was "honored by it," and "blown away" by my site and signed up. Alas, he wasn't too keen on the truth when I took his hero to task. So, you're wrong about Loury -- and everyone is wrong about Sowell (and that -- is an opportunity). What does it say to you for over 3 years -- I've been practically spit on by people promoting principles I followed to find Sowell didn't?
As stated on my site:
**********
I’m sure it’s intoxicating to amass a following and feel like you’re making a difference. But I’m gonna weigh your impact partly as a reflection of your community: How people behave, not what they believe. If you can’t get that right, I don’t care how big your following gets — you’re taking this nation nowhere.
**********
McWhorter's right -- anti-racism has become religion. But fighting that religion has become another religion.
What’s Wrong With This Picture? The Religion of Ripping on Race & Woke Religions
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/03/17/whats-wrong-with-this-picture-the-religion-of-ripping-on-race-woke-religions/
Not sure this is religious belief as much as people choosing the one designated Black person they are going to listen to and being entirely lost if that Black person is a flawed human being. Clearly Glenn Loury does not have this problem. If Loury says that he respects Sowell because of his books then Loury is saying that the books had arguments that were helpful to him not that Sowell is perfect.
I would add to that the it's not illogical nor hypocritical to agree with some things a person has said or written, without also endorsing everything they ever wrote to said in their lifetime. (Even leaving aside aspects of their personal lives, and focusing on just their intellectual output).
A common example today is when people cite MLK, Jr's "I have a dream" sentiment, and then others pick out something else that the MLK,Jr said and imply that the first group are hypocritical to cite MLK, Jr on anything unless they agree with everything he ever said. (In the latter case, it's common to cite something that MLK, Jr said about riots - failing to include the following paragraph, however).
That's more of a "gotcha" tactic, than an honest search for knowledge.
If I find something wise or insightful from some author of the past or present, I may highlight that specific thing - without implying that I thereby agree with everything that author has ever said or done. And in the other direction, if anything I've ever written resonates well with a group of people, I don't expect that means they thereby have to agree with everything I've ever said (or will say), nor with my life choices.
This is not about "perfection" -- it's about Sowell having a history wildly out of sync with his sanctimonious claims (and not just on WMD). That puts his credibility in question on everything else. And as I told Loury 3 years ago: If you're not going to consider evidence that flies in the face of your beliefs, what business do you have expecting anyone else to?
From my site:
**************
Thomas Sowell’s disciples say he does one thing and I’m showing you that sometimes he does another (which brings his credibility into question on everything else). Does that mean he’s wrong on everything else? Did I say that? I’m not even implying it — I’m simply saying his credibility is in question.
And that anyone with a history wildly out of sync with their sanctimonious claims — should not be put a pedestal as a bastion of virtue.
But that story about blind belief — is a conduit for telling a larger story about blind belief. And I don’t care whether it’s about this guy or that guy: It’s dumb, dishonest, delusional, destructive, dangerous, and deadly.
. . .
Alas, we live in a world that would rather split hairs over semantics than consider the spirit of an argument. Whether or not it’s literally “religion” is not the point — it’s faith-based belief that has no bearing on reality:
A.K.A. Wishful Thinking
The same wishful thinking that’s utterly oblivious to the counterproductive nature of endlessly beating issues into the ground in entirely transactional tactics. Repeatedly rehashing issues is not the mark of problem solving: It’s the mark of a market. All these channels are blunt instruments (including those I agree with).
Like Black Lives Matter — you’re just pounding away at problems without any examination of the efficacy of your efforts.
**************
Lastly, you've been polite and I appreciate it. It speaks well of you that you followed up in such ways after our initial exchange. That's exceedingly rare these days. All that aside, as I told another person in here (so you'll know it's not personal toward you anyone else):
****************
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).
THIS is my concern . . .
From the Earth to the Moon to “WUT”
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/04/24/from-the-earth-to-the-moon-to-wut/
****************
Thanks again!