Exactly! He's avoiding uncomfortable discussions, and in order to do so is making sweeping generalizations. A consequence of this is he completely ignores the very real and very negative impacts - on children, women, and society. This is a pattern, and seems to get at key differences in the underlying values / ideologies between Glenn and John. I'm not sure how to craft the question, but the key point I would like to see them address is their take on what can/should be discussed, and particularly how we investigate thorny issues where feelings may be hurt, where *we* may feel uncomfortable or where there may be conflict because others may have to question their own worldview. John's reaction to Charles Murray comes to mind - he acknowledges hard truths and solid data analysis, while decrying the contribution because something like "there's no good story there". This seems like a visceral reaction to devalue honest investigation of reality because it "feels wrong", it seems to go against social cohesion, or there's no immediate resolution or path. This is very dangerous and allows avoidance of identifying and trying to solve real problems, and may well be behind much of what's gone wrong in the last few years. I respect Glenn's willingness to dive right into uncomfortable truths. John seems to too often trip on his empathic reactions, and lose focus. How many times did he feel the need to bring up how it's not Kendi's fault, how he feels bad for Kendi, while still lambasting him, and knowing full well the negative impact of his ideas? I think this is worth further exploration.
Exactly! He's avoiding uncomfortable discussions, and in order to do so is making sweeping generalizations. A consequence of this is he completely ignores the very real and very negative impacts - on children, women, and society. This is a pattern, and seems to get at key differences in the underlying values / ideologies between Glenn and John. I'm not sure how to craft the question, but the key point I would like to see them address is their take on what can/should be discussed, and particularly how we investigate thorny issues where feelings may be hurt, where *we* may feel uncomfortable or where there may be conflict because others may have to question their own worldview. John's reaction to Charles Murray comes to mind - he acknowledges hard truths and solid data analysis, while decrying the contribution because something like "there's no good story there". This seems like a visceral reaction to devalue honest investigation of reality because it "feels wrong", it seems to go against social cohesion, or there's no immediate resolution or path. This is very dangerous and allows avoidance of identifying and trying to solve real problems, and may well be behind much of what's gone wrong in the last few years. I respect Glenn's willingness to dive right into uncomfortable truths. John seems to too often trip on his empathic reactions, and lose focus. How many times did he feel the need to bring up how it's not Kendi's fault, how he feels bad for Kendi, while still lambasting him, and knowing full well the negative impact of his ideas? I think this is worth further exploration.