Every month, John and I solicit questions from paying subscribers, pick a few we think will make for good conversation, and answer them during a special Q&A recording.
Don has made the admission on the Glenn Show. He confirmed his statements to Glenn Loury who, at the time seemed surprised. Glenn, in a promotion clip, said the 'assassination call" by Johh McWhorter would be raised again at this weeks Q & A session. I will also be watching.
John seems to believe pronouns are matter of kindness. But the social context we find ourselves in makes matters more complicated than that, and context is everything:
Two problems, and activism, not compassion vs intolerance, are at the core of both of them:
:
One, there is a new paradigm in town
In the original paradigm, the M-F distinction exists to reflect the fact that you can participate in procreation in only one of two ways. each associated with markers that are present at birth. Unsurprisingly, societies have noted this, and created complex social norms and rituals without knowing anything about chromosomes genes or gametes and without becoming confused by the fact that some people are different is some ways. Here womanhood is not something distributed by acts of kindness, but a distinction of enormous significance across wide ranging disciplines and issues. Anyone presenting with gender dysphoria should be treated with compassion and evidence based care, which will also remain completely open to an examination of the causes of the phenomenon. Social contracts can be negotiated, and interest groups are free to develop any codes of conduct they want amongst themselves. But crucial distinctions are upheld in language.
That paradigm is now challenged, and while many Biden appointees have not had the courage to articulate what it is in front of congress, Maya Wiley, in a recent interaction with Nancy Mace, actually answered the notorious question of what a woman is: “A woman is a person who says she is”, and she continued: “and let me just tell you a story..”
This is revealing both of strategy - tell stories - and of what the core of the paradigm is. It is rooted in social justice ideology. From a logical standpoint a circular definition is put forward. But the rhetorical trick is two-fold: to create the impression that something self-evident, something to be accepted at face value is being said. And secondly, relying on established meaning in order to immediately subvert it! Such methods are necessary, we are told, because the binary is “oppressive” - even in this day and age. Well, nobody likes oppression, but what is left? It becomes self-ID, you are what you claim you are. Is that new paradigm really better than the old one?
Smart people, some of whom have lived experiences of female vulnerability, like J.K Rowling, spotted the problem and noted the asymmetry in consequences for men vs women: The category has been hacked wide open. And the issue has been inserted into a toxic culture war where aggressive activism pushes a non-negotiable binary: you are with us or against us. If you don’t uncritically download the new paradigm you are a transphobe.
Which brings us to the second problem: the trans phenomenon cannot be reduced to simplistic narratives insinuating simple solutions. There are many manifestations, and reasons why someone might claim womanhood, Those differences have social consequences.
Scandinavian and other countries are coming to the realization that the profiles of those presenting as trans have changed and multiplied, and that we do not yet fully grasp the implications of that. They have noted that best evidentiary practices have been bypassed, something that is also the unfortunate consequence of activism.
Some say that this is about gender, not sex, but there is no consistency here, except that the social significance of sex-differences is being undermined. If the same terms are used, confusion will ensue, and has. You have someone like the former Scottish first minister stutteringly trying to articulate what the problem is with allowing rapists into woman prisons. So if your intention is to create clarity, another approach is needed.
So let’s not establish social contracts forced upon us by activism. Let there be room for people to be situationally kind as they see fit, but not be seen as unkind if they have questions. These are muddy waters now.
Yes. Glenn plays the devil's advocate well (but safely ducks offering a personal opinion). John dives in, claims it's a challenging issue, and so wants to default to kindness. He then somehow claims the usage of language is "just skin" and there is a deeper reality, defined by the individual. But really, John's thinking is appallingly shallow. He's playing a surface level technical linguist here, acknowledging the abuses but claiming that the language has nothing to do with it. That's ridiculous. The shared reality we know is what he dismisses as a simplistic view of chromosomes. The modern, "civil" way of looking at it is more complicated, to the point that it is "wise" to not be able to define the term woman. That is precisely the domain of language and law, which John casually abandons.
Do any of you think these guys have a goal? If so, what is it? Does anyone in here have a goal as to why you are here? Because here's the deal: If you've got a goal, on what basis do you measure progress? Asking "is any of this working?" would be a damn good place to start. Consider this response I received a couple years ago:
"I actually disagree with your take. I think all 3 (1619, Kaepernick, and BLM) were extremely successful as far as attention being brought to what so many Black Americans have on their collective mind." To which I replied, 7 years of Black Lives Matter and the increasing level of attention is the first thing that comes to mind as a measure of success?
"Never mistake activity for achievement" -- as John Wooden perfectly put it. That's the mistake that guy was making -- which is same mistake that all of America makes on a daily basis. Consider this example regarding a popular book: "Building on his enormously successful first edition. Tom Nichols confirms his thesis and proves that the assault on expertise has only intensified."
So, outside of selling books and building a following, you didn’t succeed — at all. But who cares about the efficacy of your efforts when failure is a pretty profitable enterprise these days. When a deservingly popular book didn’t make a dent in 7 years (and everything’s gotten worse to boot): I fail to understand the excitement for an expanded edition doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of making a dent either.
"We stood there in the summer of 1984. . . . Two decades had passed since the heyday of the civil rights achievements of the 1960s. It was time to take stock. Where have we blacks gotten ourselves to? I asked . . . High up in the speech throwing down the gauntlet came my signature declaration, the Civil Rights Movement is over, I asserted. I claimed that the problems of the lower classes of African American society plagued by poverty and joblessness were, at the end of the day, not remediable by the means which had been so effective in the 1960s of protest and petitioning for fair treatment.
What we now faced, I suggested, was a new American dilemma. The formulation I ultimately settled on contrasted an enemy without, that would be white racism, with an enemy within — black society."
“The Civil Rights Movement is over” — in 1984! That — took guts. I don't see anything like that in Loury today. And since I've dealt with him one-on-one and you probably haven't -- maybe I know something about him that you don't. "It was time to take stock." Ya know, like "Is any of this working?" We could change all that -- and you could be part of making a real impact with measurable progress. But you're busy -- endlessly rehashing the same old problems in the same old ways.
John wants us to lie about reality. I guess when someone exclaims they are a dog that will be fine too.. how far does it go John. A man says he’s a child so he can play with girls? Is that ok too and we will need to respect his wishes of calling him a child? It’s now men in women locker rooms and sports..and we are suppose to deny that reality?
It’s ok to use the justice system unlawfully to take out a political opponent? I suppose the racist justice system in the KKK south was also ok? They could justify it the same as you. I’m sure they used the same adjectives you use in describing Trump the KKK used in describing black people. The Democrat party is the same as it always was, John just proved it.
And still has not read any of the research re Jan 6th? Nothing? 200 plus uncover agents who actually broke windows, wore colored wrist bands to be identified, had FBI informants dressed in Trump gear and still can’t figure out what that really was. NO John we are not Democrats we don’t spend the summer of love burning buildings, killing people or subverting an election honey..we leave that to your kind.
John McWhorter should be prosecuted. It is a crime to call for the assassination of a President. It is NOT free-speech to encourage violence. An academic suggesting that murder is a good solution indicates indecent, immoral bankruptcy and intellectual vacancy. The 'black guys' image on the Glenn Show has been destroyed and black stereotypical perspectives can now be applied to John McWhorter. John should resign.
I have recounted to friends John's comments calling for someone to kill Trump and they find it hard to believe that he actually said this. Did John make these comments in writing, are they available somewhere you can point me to?
Sorry, Glenn, you don't get to blame Trump on the Democrats' shortcomings. Man up and admit that the conservative side, mostly on the farther right, has become utterly deranged. John is spot-on in laying out everything that's wrong with Donald Trump and if you and Trump's fanboys and fangirls could think even slightly critically on this subject you'd see that Trump is in fact, as John points out, the least qualified person to ever run for President. Plus he's a moral nightmare and a wannabe autocrat. Even though he'll never pull it off the *desire* is extremely troubling. If you people don't get your dictator this time around, who will it be next time? That desire for dictatorship on the right is what bothers me more than that half-assed orange-haired bananas Republican.
You have Trump Denial Syndrome, Glenn. And the call is coming from *inside the house*, not Democrat Headquarters.
Now, I do think the predictions that Donald Trump will destroy democracy and install himself as Dictator forLife are overblown. In fact, I have Trump Fatigue Syndrome - I no longer believe anything ominous I hear about Trump. I don't like him; I'm not gonna vote for him; and if he gets elected, I don't have to live with him because I'm in Canada now, and I'm not going to feel sorry for America, since both sides have been campaigning heavily for him. I think the Democrats have been handed a gift the other night with Biden's performance in the debate; they can eject him for someone else in August and Trump will likely lose. But I'm not sure they're smart enough to do that, or pick someone who's not uber-woke.
I got so fed up with the 'dictatorship' crap that I Googled it and found a good argument for why it's never gonna happen from someone who lived in a democracy that eventually became a dictatorship. And he says eight years isn't nearly enough time esp with a break in between.
But seriously, Glenn, y'all have *no* moral argument here with Trump. I often wonder whether the founding fathers didn't put something in the Constitution about how the President can't be a convicted felon. As much as they privately disdained the intellect of the colonist masses, maybe they didn't think Americans could possibly, ever be THAT stupid.
Don't call for his death, but for f's sake, wo/man up and demand better from your party. Is Trump seriously the BEST person you have to offer?
The "no, you are" defense (the height of "conversation" today). You people are just sharp as a razor. I can beat the hell out of Democrats all day long and I don't need childish lingo like “Democrat Party” to do it. Just what do you think such language is designed to do? It’s Indoctrination 101. Criticize ’em all day long (I don’t care — as long as it’s on the merits). But Jesus, just act your age!
I don't approve of "Denial Syndrome" of any kind -- so my standard applies to "Grow Some Labia" as well. Nevertheless, she constructed an argument -- you did not (nor did DocH).
"Trump derangement syndrome at its finest!" is not an argument (nor is countering with "Trump Denial Syndrome at its finest!" or "Leftist ignorance at its finest!!). And you think adding an extra exclamation point adds weight to your childish and colossally trite comeback?
All that aside: You no doubt have valid points to offer (just as "Grow Some Labia" does and everyone else in here). But rather than consider the arguments (in part or in full) -- you outright dismiss them over what you perceive about the person. That's prejudice by definition.
Lemme show you what argument really looks like. And of course, instead of listening and learning -- your kind complains about the heavy burden of having to think things through. Your "kind" is on the Left & Right (where bullshit is just a matter of branding).
*************************************************
First time I ever heard of John McWhorter was in a 2017 interview, in which he said about Trump: “He has a rather narcotic joy in dismissal and belittlement.” As The Donald is a symptom of the cancer that America has become, chances are — so do you. 20 years ago, it would have been impossible for him to be seriously considered, let alone win. If you’re not lookin’ into that, you’re not lookin’. But why bother when it’s so much easier to cry foul over “TDS”?
Do you know where the term “Trump Derangement Syndrome” originates from? I didn’t ask you what it is — I asked if you know the origin of the term. You’ve probably heard of yellowcake — how about uranium hexafluoride? Does calling someone a “Bush hater” strike you as a valid counter to that question? And yet that’s exactly what Bush apologists did when systematic self-delusion was in its infancy in the “Information” Age. Your kind has been playing that hate-card crap for decades. “Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Plamegate” & plenty more. Adding to the arsenal of childish crap to continue the tradition: “Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party.”
Stirring defense!
And about that uranium hexafluoride (on a matter of world-altering consequence that shaped everything you see today): That story goes straight to the top with who’s in the White House right now — on very specific culpability to boot (which means your “whataboutism” bullshit goes right out the window with me). I’m well aware of the Left’s ludicrous ways of woke, rigging race-related incidents, and how they play the hate card when it comes to protecting their own. “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is not an argument any more than “Bush hater” — just as “everybody believed Iraq had WMD” is not an argument any more than “armed only with Skittles.”
“God can’t make square circles” but you think you can. Even the Almighty can’t make something it is not. But thanks to the internet and the cable clans paving the way for the onslaught of the utterly absurd — you can shapeshift anything or anyone into what you want to see: Even making saints out of people with a patently obvious history of hypocrisy and lies.
“A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.” That quote’s been around in various forms for over 300 years (evidently the original being from 1710): “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect.” I know the feeling, all too well! Just as I know the futility of coming here in the hope of having a larger conversation with people primarily interested in entertaining themselves. Social media (a.k.a. Safe-Space Central) — is gluttony under the guise of concern. It’s a sham and it always has been.
“Until the rise of podcasts, twitter, and the various forms of independent media / journalism, people weren’t really aware how legacy media was influencing their thinking. I think people are finally waking up and may surprise you here, especially if more talk about it.”
New formats for funneling information that caters to your cravings is not what I’d call enlightened. And those who couldn’t spot clearly dishonest actors before — think they’re wide awake now? The Twitter bio behind that quote begins with “Groupthink averse.” It would never occur to him that everything in that Tweet is Groupthink 101. “Substack Is a Scam in the Same Way That All Media Is”:
Just as outrage industries crying foul over McWhorter’s implication about “assignation” — while you flagrantly ignore WHY he said it (writing off any and all criticism as “TDS” — like your kin who came before you). To be clear, questioning McWhorter's "overture" is fair game — I'm simply saying it's part of a larger game (one in which you're all being played — Left & Right).
The following quote captures far more than the source of it comprehends. It would never dawn on him that he helped create the ugliness he so beautifully articulated:
“The thing that is most disturbing to me, in a sea of disturbing things — is that there is no opportunity in all of humanity, to observe the world we live in, and to see all the scope of life in the world, like being President of the United States. You sit there, and for 4 years, or for 8 years — the crème de la crème of society is presented to you. ‘Here’s the bravest man and woman in the military. Here’s the smart scientists. Here’s the most dedicated children in their learning.’ You get to see the ugliest . . . what are terrorists doing in torture camps. You see the world from a vista that only a man, or one day a woman, can have that outlook.
And I thought to myself: “Surely, when he won . . . he would change as a result of that.” Every day, you’re having meetings and talking to serious people. And then you come into the Oval Office to “Here’s the winners of the Spelling Bee of San Diego.” . . . And you meet these people, and life just comes washing over you. Your heart and your mind open up. What a learning experience — how much you learn about the world. And I thought, “It’s gonna change him.” . . . He didn’t change one f#%@g gram!”
That says a helluva lot more about America than it does about Trump. Who said it? Does it matter? To defenders of the indefensible — oh yeah! Because the source is what you’d seize on to deflect and deny the obvious: Then go right back to bitching about the opposition doing the same. I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong: I’m saying your staggering hypocrisy is sickening and so is the other side’s.
Which is why this conversation’s going nowhere — and I just wasted $6 on an exercise in futility. Lemme save you some time. The first word that doesn’t reflect someone seeking in-depth discussion, will be the last word I read.
“The crude, dirty ‘brutes’ of the land of the Houyhnhnms in Gulliver’s Travels. The Yahoos are irrational people and represent the worst side of humanity. By contrast, the wise and gentle Houyhnhnms, their masters, are rational horses and represent humanity at its best.”
Glenn is spot on. To think you had to look up whether it is possible for someone in their late 70's, who has not been involved with politics, who has no army/military might behind him - could or would become a "dictator"?! Really? Just think it through - walk me through how that happens. It doesn't. John has the same (irrational) fear. He's joined the group just like everyone else.
This comment is for Jakon Joi if he happens to read comments. (It's also for anyone who recognizes that our current method of providing "justice" is neither effective in deterring crime, nor does it meet the needs of the victims). I'm so sorry for your loss. Even the people who commit a murder often don't know why they did it. But as a prisoner in this documentary says, "Hurt people hurt others." He did so without deflecting responsibility, because he has come to recognize that just because you yourself are a victim does not justify hurting others. Jakon, you sound like somebody who wants to both heal, and also to use your experience to help others, perhaps by finding more effective ways to mete out justice. Glenn gave you some great advice to seek out others in similar circumstances. I also encourage you to watch this film ($3.00 to rent, $6.00 to buy; best money I've ever spent). It might give you some additional ideas, and perhaps you will be inspired by Agnes. The trailer is in the first link, and a brief article about it is in the second link. All the best.
First time I ever heard of John McWhorter was in a 2017 interview, in which he said about Trump: “He has a rather narcotic joy in dismissal and belittlement.” As The Donald is a symptom of the cancer that America has become, chances are — so do you. 20 years ago, it would have been impossible for him to be seriously considered, let alone win. If you’re not lookin’ into that, you’re not lookin’. But why bother when it’s so much easier to cry foul over “TDS”?
Do you know where the term “Trump Derangement Syndrome” originates from? I didn’t ask you what it is — I asked if you know the origin of the term. You’ve probably heard of yellowcake — how about uranium hexafluoride? Does calling someone a “Bush hater” strike you as a valid counter to that question? And yet that’s exactly what Bush apologists did when systematic self-delusion was in its infancy in the “Information” Age. Your kind has been playing that hate-card crap for decades. “Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Plamegate” & plenty more. Adding to the arsenal of childish crap to continue the tradition: “Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party.”
Stirring defense!
And about that uranium hexafluoride (on a matter of world-altering consequence that shaped everything you see today): That story goes straight to the top with who’s in the White House right now — on very specific culpability to boot (which means your “whataboutism” bullshit goes right out the window with me). I’m well aware of the Left’s ludicrous ways of woke, rigging race-related incidents, and how they play the hate card when it comes to protecting their own. “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is not an argument any more than “Bush hater” — just as “everybody believed Iraq had WMD” is not an argument any more than “armed only with Skittles.”
“God can’t make square circles” but you think you can. Even the Almighty can’t make something it is not. But thanks to the internet and the cable clans paving the way for the onslaught of the utterly absurd — you can shapeshift anything or anyone into what you want to see: Even making saints out of people with a patently obvious history of hypocrisy and lies.
“A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.” That quote’s been around in various forms for over 300 years (evidently the original being from 1710): “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect.” I know the feeling, all too well! Just as I know the futility of coming here in the hope of having a larger conversation with people primarily interested in entertaining themselves. Social media (a.k.a. Safe-Space Central) — is gluttony under the guise of concern. It’s a sham and it always has been.
“Until the rise of podcasts, twitter, and the various forms of independent media / journalism, people weren’t really aware how legacy media was influencing their thinking. I think people are finally waking up and may surprise you here, especially if more talk about it.”
New formats for funneling information that caters to your cravings is not what I’d call enlightened. And those who couldn’t spot clearly dishonest actors before — think they’re wide awake now? The Twitter bio behind that quote begins with “Groupthink averse.” It would never occur to him that everything in that Tweet is Groupthink 101. “Substack Is a Scam in the Same Way That All Media Is”:
Just as outrage industries crying foul over McWhorter’s implication about “assignation” — while you flagrantly ignore WHY he said it (writing off any and all criticism as “TDS” — like your kin who came before you). To be clear, questioning McWhorter's "overture" is fair game — I'm simply saying it's part of a larger game (one in which you're all being played — Left & Right).
The following quote captures far more than the source of it comprehends. It would never dawn on him that he helped create the ugliness he so beautifully articulated:
“The thing that is most disturbing to me, in a sea of disturbing things — is that there is no opportunity in all of humanity, to observe the world we live in, and to see all the scope of life in the world, like being President of the United States. You sit there, and for 4 years, or for 8 years — the crème de la crème of society is presented to you. ‘Here’s the bravest man and woman in the military. Here’s the smart scientists. Here’s the most dedicated children in their learning.’ You get to see the ugliest . . . what are terrorists doing in torture camps. You see the world from a vista that only a man, or one day a woman, can have that outlook.
And I thought to myself: “Surely, when he won . . . he would change as a result of that.” Every day, you’re having meetings and talking to serious people. And then you come into the Oval Office to “Here’s the winners of the Spelling Bee of San Diego.” . . . And you meet these people, and life just comes washing over you. Your heart and your mind open up. What a learning experience — how much you learn about the world. And I thought, “It’s gonna change him.” . . . He didn’t change one f#%@g gram!”
That says a helluva lot more about America than it does about Trump. Who said it? Does it matter? To defenders of the indefensible — oh yeah! Because the source is what you’d seize on to deflect and deny the obvious: Then go right back to bitching about the opposition doing the same. I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong: I’m saying your staggering hypocrisy is sickening and so is the other side’s.
Which is why this conversation’s going nowhere — and I just wasted $6 on an exercise in futility. Lemme save you some time. The first word that doesn’t reflect someone seeking in-depth discussion, will be the last word I read.
“The crude, dirty ‘brutes’ of the land of the Houyhnhnms in Gulliver’s Travels. The Yahoos are irrational people and represent the worst side of humanity. By contrast, the wise and gentle Houyhnhnms, their masters, are rational horses and represent humanity at its best.”
Glenn, just so you know, the way you use the word "delusion" to apply to people who are transgender is not the way psychologists use the word delusion. (Look it up on the APA website if you want to know the psychological definition of the word). If a transgender female who is a cis male insists that he has one Y chromosome and one X chromosome, that would be a delusion. But that is not what transgender people believe. They are referring to their psychology, not their biology. Hopefully you know that all humans are more than just their biology. If not, perhaps have another conversation with your awesome son. :)
To prevent others from having to google for your definition, I'll repaste it here: "an often highly personal idea or belief system, not endorsed by one's culture or subculture, that is maintained with conviction in spite of irrationality or evidence to the contrary" Interestingly, gender ideology would not be a APA-defined delusion solely because of the first condition - *endorsed by one's culture or subculture*. It appears that APA is focusing on individual delusions, while the standard dictionary definition does not have that condition, and includes mass/social delusions, and could fit here.
You're using a broad brush to claim that all transgender people are referring to their psychology, not their biology. I'd think many may even label that view transphobic. The common conception is that there is a gendered property, akin to a soul - something that transcends biology and psychology. From his comments, even John seems to accept this. Where this causes conflict is that this is then brought to bear on the physical world, requesting treatment as biological women. The issue is when this concept of gender is used to change real world policies that have always been linked to sex only, because of the clear differences in physical reality.
First, you're right that psychologists only diagnose individuals, not groups. They may examine environmental influences on behavior, but generally the DSM doesn't focus on them except to say "rule them out" (e.g., a specific learning disability can't be caused by a lack of appropriate instruction). As for the Oxford Dictionary definition of delusion, it says, "a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, occurring especially in mental conditions. He began to experience hallucinations, delusions, anxiety, and agitation along with dizziness and nausea." Transgenderism also does not meet the plain old dictionary definition of delusion, either. Transgender people fully understand their biological reality, and that it conflicts with the way they feel, which I refer to as psychology. You said, "The common conception is that there is a gendered property, akin to a soul - something that transcends biology and psychology." Where is the research to support the idea that this conception is common, and among whom specifically? I didn't hear John say anything about a soul, or any aspect of self that is neither biological nor psychological, whatever that may be. (I suspect transgender people are no more religious than the average American, especially since they are mostly rejected by religions, but I don't think that's been studied). You said that this could fit the definition of a "mass/social delusion." So you think transgender folks are delusional? Who is being transphobic now? You are promoting the social contagion theory of the far right which has been discredited by research. (link #1 below), or for a deeper dive into the debunking, listen to the 3 part podcast of "Maintenance Phase" podcast (link #2)
Interesting counter; it is very difficult to clearly communicate core ideas with such a heated topic, and when the underlying conceptions of the issue are so at odds. Up front - I think "delusion" is too loaded and not helpful in this context. Notably Glenn also distanced himself from offering any view at all by playing his devil's advocate stance when using this term. John seems to object to delusion because trans-identifying people do not appear delusional in other areas… "beyond" the exact issue we are discussing.
I see the term transphobic as a likewise loaded, unhelpful term; used primarily as a means to stifle vital discussion - the very discussion that John acknowledges needs to be had, regarding the "abuses" in areas like women's sports and "out of hand gender transitioning." I used it only pointing out that I see many instances on the more activist side which use this term as a catchall smear intended to stop discussion.
John would like to completely separate those issues from the simple civility of referring to someone as they wish to be referred, and focus solely on the latter. There is certainly a point to be made here, but he vastly underestimates the power of language in shaping our view of reality, including policy and law. John declares "obviously male and female are biological categories" - yet you mentioned "transgender female" referring to a male - and this is a perfect example of how language use can blur the line between sex and gender.
Reducing one's felt identity to psychology, I think would be an affront to many among the transgender activists, who would label such a reduction as transphobic. If it is indeed a solely psychological condition, the approach of physical body modification (to put it kindly) to accommodate this would be a severe departure from how any other issue would be handled.
The very conception of gender identity, is what I'm referring to as akin to a gendered soul. That's an analysis, similarly actually to John's labeling of "woke religion".
Regarding John's views - on a relisten he doesn't seem to fully accept the concept, but rather urges us to just honor it. He did attribute the idea that "identity soars above those things [chromosomes]" to "people" that he isn't comfortable with saying are delusional (trans-identifying people?), and didn't express this himself. John doesn't accept that he's "assenting to craziness" but also asserted that one's sense of gender identity is "frankly just as real" as the sex distinction. Depending on our definitions of reality, that can be fine, but only if there is no utility in sex distinction. If there is a need for societal protections/distinctions for females, and I contend there is, there is a need to stick to the "elementary" biological definition. This may cause an uncomfortable conflict, and hurt some people's feelings, but denying that we have to truly examine that is a serious problem.
This is too long already, but to close - no, saying there is an element of social contagion in this phenomenon is neither "of the far right" nor "debunked". Did you read the first article closely? There are many leaps to reach a conclusion - and it is focusing solely on their estimate of proportion of male to female proportions as they tried to derive from survey responses. There of course are different pathways and reasons for any individual to transition, and trying to use a derived overall ratio across all transitioners to claim that a certain driver is or isn't happening doesn't make sense. In any case there is also plenty of data which suggests otherwise (one such study: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Ratios-of-assigned-male-at-birth-AMAB-compared-to-assigned-female-at-birth-AFAB-for_fig1_371853540 )
I agree with Glenn about the Democratic Party, the FDR coalition that governed the country has long since dissolved. The Democratic Party has become a Party of coastal elites pushing forth unpopular social policies. The Republicans are no better pushing their brand of unpopular social and economic policies. I cannot, however, explain away Trump, to vote for Trump is to give into frustration and abandon the American project in many fundamental ways. Trump is his allows characters like Alexander Spellane (Fisher Capital Group) to give a sales pitch before his rallies to sell overpriced silver and gold. I think this exemplifies I who Trump is, a true-blue American shyster.
I just lost respect for John McWhorter. To wish someone assassinated is beyond the pale in a democratic free society. He has something beyond TDS -- his views are frightful
First time I ever heard of John McWhorter was in a 2017 interview, in which he said about Trump: “He has a rather narcotic joy in dismissal and belittlement.” As The Donald is a symptom of the cancer that America has become, chances are — so do you. 20 years ago, it would have been impossible for him to be seriously considered, let alone win. If you’re not lookin’ into that, you’re not lookin’. But why bother when it’s so much easier to cry foul over “TDS”?
Do you know where the term “Trump Derangement Syndrome” originates from? I didn’t ask you what it is — I asked if you know the origin of the term. You’ve probably heard of yellowcake — how about uranium hexafluoride? Does calling someone a “Bush hater” strike you as a valid counter to that question? And yet that’s exactly what Bush apologists did when systematic self-delusion was in its infancy in the “Information” Age. Your kind has been playing that hate-card crap for decades. “Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Plamegate” & plenty more. Adding to the arsenal of childish crap to continue the tradition: “Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party.”
Stirring defense!
And about that uranium hexafluoride (on a matter of world-altering consequence that shaped everything you see today): That story goes straight to the top with who’s in the White House right now — on very specific culpability to boot (which means your “whataboutism” bullshit goes right out the window with me). I’m well aware of the Left’s ludicrous ways of woke, rigging race-related incidents, and how they play the hate card when it comes to protecting their own. “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is not an argument any more than “Bush hater” — just as “everybody believed Iraq had WMD” is not an argument any more than “armed only with Skittles.”
“God can’t make square circles” but you think you can. Even the Almighty can’t make something it is not. But thanks to the internet and the cable clans paving the way for the onslaught of the utterly absurd — you can shapeshift anything or anyone into what you want to see: Even making saints out of people with a patently obvious history of hypocrisy and lies.
“A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.” That quote’s been around in various forms for over 300 years (evidently the original being from 1710): “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect.” I know the feeling, all too well! Just as I know the futility of coming here in the hope of having a larger conversation with people primarily interested in entertaining themselves. Social media (a.k.a. Safe-Space Central) — is gluttony under the guise of concern. It’s a sham and it always has been.
“Until the rise of podcasts, twitter, and the various forms of independent media / journalism, people weren’t really aware how legacy media was influencing their thinking. I think people are finally waking up and may surprise you here, especially if more talk about it.”
New formats for funneling information that caters to your cravings is not what I’d call enlightened. And those who couldn’t spot clearly dishonest actors before — think they’re wide awake now? The Twitter bio behind that quote begins with “Groupthink averse.” It would never occur to him that everything in that Tweet is Groupthink 101. “Substack Is a Scam in the Same Way That All Media Is”:
Just as outrage industries crying foul over McWhorter’s implication about “assignation” — while you flagrantly ignore WHY he said it (writing off any and all criticism as “TDS” — like your kin who came before you). To be clear, questioning McWhorter's "overture" is fair game — I'm simply saying it's part of a larger game (one in which you're all being played — Left & Right).
The following quote captures far more than the source of it comprehends. It would never dawn on him that he helped create the ugliness he so beautifully articulated:
“The thing that is most disturbing to me, in a sea of disturbing things — is that there is no opportunity in all of humanity, to observe the world we live in, and to see all the scope of life in the world, like being President of the United States. You sit there, and for 4 years, or for 8 years — the crème de la crème of society is presented to you. ‘Here’s the bravest man and woman in the military. Here’s the smart scientists. Here’s the most dedicated children in their learning.’ You get to see the ugliest . . . what are terrorists doing in torture camps. You see the world from a vista that only a man, or one day a woman, can have that outlook.
And I thought to myself: “Surely, when he won . . . he would change as a result of that.” Every day, you’re having meetings and talking to serious people. And then you come into the Oval Office to “Here’s the winners of the Spelling Bee of San Diego.” . . . And you meet these people, and life just comes washing over you. Your heart and your mind open up. What a learning experience — how much you learn about the world. And I thought, “It’s gonna change him.” . . . He didn’t change one f#%@g gram!”
That says a helluva lot more about America than it does about Trump. Who said it? Does it matter? To defenders of the indefensible — oh yeah! Because the source is what you’d seize on to deflect and deny the obvious: Then go right back to bitching about the opposition doing the same. I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong: I’m saying your staggering hypocrisy is sickening and so is the other side’s.
Which is why this conversation’s going nowhere — and I just wasted $6 on an exercise in futility. Lemme save you some time. The first word that doesn’t reflect someone seeking in-depth discussion, will be the last word I read.
“The crude, dirty ‘brutes’ of the land of the Houyhnhnms in Gulliver’s Travels. The Yahoos are irrational people and represent the worst side of humanity. By contrast, the wise and gentle Houyhnhnms, their masters, are rational horses and represent humanity at its best.”
One of the most powerful episodes of the Glenn Show podcast. John McWhorter apologizing in the beginning for his comments about Trump getting assassinated. And then it ends with a tragic story and lesson about the human condition having no color. I stated the phrase-"Oh My God" once Glenn mentioned the death of Jakon Joi's father. I have no other words to share.
Adopting someone else's delusion is called folie à deux. Seems like this psychiatric syndrome is being imposed on others in pronoun use (they, zir). Alternatively we can simply be patronizing.
John considers himself too smart to have "TDS" - I actually agree with that and am surprised that he cannot see beyond his own emotional reactions. I honestly expect more from John!
I know. Maybe it's all an act. If it's an act, it has gotten tedious.
You'd think a person might temper his disdain with recognition that under Trump the border was not the mess it is now. That we didn't have two serious wars underway. Maybe show a curiosity about the 51 former intelligence officials who lied about the laptop being "Russian disinformation." Maybe notice some oddities in the lawfare launched against Trump. You don't have to wave a Trump flag, but maybe just sit down and take deep breath.
Snopes, after nearly seven years, is finally acknowledging that the Fine People Hoax was and always has been a hoax. A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. I wish John -- or the character he is playing if that is the case -- would take that step.
I have been following Glenn and John for about 5 years now. IMHO, at some level they are both playing us. It was amusing for a while but as you note is becoming more tedious as time passes. I've wondered why they would do this. Can one make enough money from a successful Substack to make this worthwhile? Maybe you can if you through in hawking your latest book.
Giving both Glenn and John the benefit of the doubt as rigorous scholars in their respective fields, I have been disappointed at their lack of rigor when venturing into areas that they are not expert in.
Now THAT is an intelligent comment (and how refreshing). Congratulations! In over 3 years of writing extensively on that concern and so much more, you're only the 2nd person I've seen who started wondering in such ways. Now, if you wanna do something about it -- hear me out. Below is the comment I wrote for this topic today, but there's a ton more where that came from:
******************
First time I ever heard of John McWhorter was in a 2017 interview, in which he said about Trump: “He has a rather narcotic joy in dismissal and belittlement.” As The Donald is a symptom of the cancer that America has become, chances are — so do you. 20 years ago, it would have been impossible for him to be seriously considered, let alone win. If you’re not lookin’ into that, you’re not lookin’. But why bother when it’s so much easier to cry foul over “TDS”?
Do you know where the term “Trump Derangement Syndrome” originates from? I didn’t ask you what it is — I asked if you know the origin of the term. You’ve probably heard of yellowcake — how about uranium hexafluoride? Does calling someone a “Bush hater” strike you as a valid counter to that question? And yet that’s exactly what Bush apologists did when systematic self-delusion was in its infancy in the “Information” Age. Your kind has been playing that hate-card crap for decades. “Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Plamegate” & plenty more. Adding to the arsenal of childish crap to continue the tradition: “Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party.”
Stirring defense!
And about that uranium hexafluoride (on a matter of world-altering consequence that shaped everything you see today): That story goes straight to the top with who’s in the White House right now — on very specific culpability to boot (which means your “whataboutism” bullshit goes right out the window with me). I’m well aware of the Left’s ludicrous ways of woke, rigging race-related incidents, and how they play the hate card when it comes to protecting their own. “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is not an argument any more than “Bush hater” — just as “everybody believed Iraq had WMD” is not an argument any more than “armed only with Skittles.”
“God can’t make square circles” but you think you can. Even the Almighty can’t make something it is not. But thanks to the internet and the cable clans paving the way for the onslaught of the utterly absurd — you can shapeshift anything or anyone into what you want to see: Even making saints out of people with a patently obvious history of hypocrisy and lies.
“A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.” That quote’s been around in various forms for over 300 years (evidently the original being from 1710): “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect.” I know the feeling, all too well! Just as I know the futility of coming here in the hope of having a larger conversation with people primarily interested in entertaining themselves. Social media (a.k.a. Safe-Space Central) — is gluttony under the guise of concern. It’s a sham and it always has been.
“Until the rise of podcasts, twitter, and the various forms of independent media / journalism, people weren’t really aware how legacy media was influencing their thinking. I think people are finally waking up and may surprise you here, especially if more talk about it.”
New formats for funneling information that caters to your cravings is not what I’d call enlightened. And those who couldn’t spot clearly dishonest actors before — think they’re wide awake now? The Twitter bio behind that quote begins with “Groupthink averse.” It would never occur to him that everything in that Tweet is Groupthink 101. “Substack Is a Scam in the Same Way That All Media Is”:
Just as outrage industries crying foul over McWhorter’s implication about “assignation” — while you flagrantly ignore WHY he said it (writing off any and all criticism as “TDS” — like your kin who came before you). To be clear, questioning McWhorter's "overture" is fair game — I'm simply saying it's part of a larger game (one in which you're all being played — Left & Right).
The following quote captures far more than the source of it comprehends. It would never dawn on him that he helped create the ugliness he so beautifully articulated:
“The thing that is most disturbing to me, in a sea of disturbing things — is that there is no opportunity in all of humanity, to observe the world we live in, and to see all the scope of life in the world, like being President of the United States. You sit there, and for 4 years, or for 8 years — the crème de la crème of society is presented to you. ‘Here’s the bravest man and woman in the military. Here’s the smart scientists. Here’s the most dedicated children in their learning.’ You get to see the ugliest . . . what are terrorists doing in torture camps. You see the world from a vista that only a man, or one day a woman, can have that outlook.
And I thought to myself: “Surely, when he won . . . he would change as a result of that.” Every day, you’re having meetings and talking to serious people. And then you come into the Oval Office to “Here’s the winners of the Spelling Bee of San Diego.” . . . And you meet these people, and life just comes washing over you. Your heart and your mind open up. What a learning experience — how much you learn about the world. And I thought, “It’s gonna change him.” . . . He didn’t change one f#%@g gram!”
That says a helluva lot more about America than it does about Trump. Who said it? Does it matter? To defenders of the indefensible — oh yeah! Because the source is what you’d seize on to deflect and deny the obvious: Then go right back to bitching about the opposition doing the same. I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong: I’m saying your staggering hypocrisy is sickening and so is the other side’s.
Which is why this conversation’s going nowhere — and I just wasted $6 on an exercise in futility. Lemme save you some time. The first word that doesn’t reflect someone seeking in-depth discussion, will be the last word I read.
“The crude, dirty ‘brutes’ of the land of the Houyhnhnms in Gulliver’s Travels. The Yahoos are irrational people and represent the worst side of humanity. By contrast, the wise and gentle Houyhnhnms, their masters, are rational horses and represent humanity at its best.”
I'm going to cut Glenn a little more slack, especially about the book. Hawking a book kind of comes with the territory. I think it's more about getting the book in front of people than in making money off of sales. That said...
I've been following them about the same period of time. There seems less of an edge. Maybe people are more willing to cover the same territory now. Maybe we've built up immunity. Whatever the case, it definitely seems softer to me.
Seems to me, they used to cover more current events. There was some outrage or other to discuss every month. Maybe that has grown stale. Maybe the MSM doesn't pump out those stories like they once did. Or maybe three conversations a month is too many.
Here's hoping there will be a post-book second wind. Just in time for the election.
I was deeply disappointed with John's response to the pronoun question. He says, "And I would hope that people who are having problems with these new developments would understand that just the X and Y chromosomes isn’t the argument. It’s almost a willful oversimplification of something that obviously is more interesting, and, frankly, just as real as that elementary distinction.” I can turn this right back around -- he is almost willfully oversimplifying extremely thoughtful arguments from women, lesbians, gays, parents, and detransitioners about why these "new developments" are dangerous and harmful. Boiling down gender critical discourse to "bUt ChRoMoSoMeS!!!" is extremely unfair dishonest.
Additionally, if someone is steeped in the discourse and still decides to use preferred pronouns for their reasons, I can respect that. I have a trans friend whom I call “she/her” even though this person is obviously a male. But to take that position out of ignorance, meanwhile talking with authority as though you are informed… THAT is what really disappoints me about John. It feels like willful ignorance from someone who is otherwise smart, well-read, and thoughtful, and his tone and language felt extremely dismissive of people with very valid concerns.
I understand that John is a linguist and he is trying to take a linguist approach to this issue. But it feels extremely incomplete to not even acknowledge why people are so concerned about pronouns and just say, "It's language. Language changes, and it's not in our control anyways." Would you discuss the N word without discussing the cultural context that surrounds its controversy? Why doesn't John give the same rigor to pronouns and gender issues that he gives to other issues?
Finally, it is clear to me how uninformed John is because he says, "Nobody can deny that there’s a biologically such thing as a man or biologically such thing as a woman." Veronica Ivy went on Trevor Noah and said, “I am a woman. It says so on my ID and birth certificate. And I’m biological, I’m made of cells and I’m alive. Am I not a biological woman?” How can he say “nobody is saying”? Many adults are claiming that biological sex is mutable, a spectrum, or nonexistent, which is all false. And this is extremely harmful to children, some of whom come to believe that sex isn't real, which has all sorts of implications for their sexual and reproductive development if they choose to interrupt it with hormones, whose consequences they cannot comprehend.
Sex denialism is rampant. Back in 2023, a whistleblower in Florida exposed that a lab in Florida was doing away with sex-based ranges to interpret test results. I saved the article because I knew Google would eventually bury it. What was reported in the Florida Standard is chilling:
"laboratory staff was recently informed by the chemistry supervisor that they are to work
with one range only – a combined one that is supposed to apply to both male and female patients. “He said that it was in the name of being ‘inclusive,’ so we don’t differentiate between genders – so we don’t discriminate against trans patients and so on,”the employee tells The Florida Standard. Laboratory workers were told that “inclusive ranges are the wave of the future” – which is also stated in the meeting agenda."
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.
One comment to the point of “what would Trump do that would be so bad?” — since everyone here is a big fan of the meritocracy I invite you all to be as upset as I am at Trump/Trump surrogates wanting to reform the government bureaucracy. The current practice of government employees being hired for their ability to actually do the job and basically be immune from the political cycle would end. Instead all federal employees would be political hires, that can be hired and fired based on how well they tow the party line. First world countries have competent bureaucracies, third (and second world, assuming that’s still what we call communist countries) world countries don’t. I know the bureaucracy is characterized as the “unelected bureaucrats” and “the deep state”. It is also known as the competent, experienced technical experts that when allowed to, make the government work. Bear in mind all the people you think of at “the bureacracy” (like Fauci) are actually high ranking political appointees.
Well, clearly any big organization has all kinds. “Whether there should be an ideological litmus test” is exactly the problem. I don’t know what agency you are in… but clearly if the whole agency changes over every time a new president is elected it would be a disaster. Continuing resolutions because congress can’t get its job done is bad enough. No one is talking about making the government work better. Trump just wants less push back on bad ideas.
I worked for an agency that was over 95% outsourced. If they went through and fired all the federal employees who didn’t support Trump, let’s say half… how could that possibly help anything?
So, to be clear, the Trump plan would be to make the entire federal government be schedule c. I don’t know what your agency is like, but mine had a very few spines among ranks of the schedule c. In the regular bureaucracy, it was mostly engineers, scientists, and a few lawyers - so no shortage of opinions… I realize all the agencies are different in how many feds there are (relative to contractors) and how many of them are political appointees.
I’m curious about your experience. Are these informal litmus tests being conducted by supervisors (who may be political appointees) or just the usual self-important fiefdom building? (Apologies if you don’t know what I mean, in my experience some people’s only meaning in work was to try to build their bureaucratic power to maintain relevance as there were reorgs, priority changes etc).
My understanding of the plan would that it would follow the model DoD developed at the end of the first Trump administration, where people’s social media was scrubbed and people were asked for loyalty oaths to the president not the constitution. It sounds just soooo dystopian. Or Soviet or CCP or something, definitely not American — where idiots can rant on the internet to vent without it costing them their livelihoods.
Don has made the admission on the Glenn Show. He confirmed his statements to Glenn Loury who, at the time seemed surprised. Glenn, in a promotion clip, said the 'assassination call" by Johh McWhorter would be raised again at this weeks Q & A session. I will also be watching.
John seems to believe pronouns are matter of kindness. But the social context we find ourselves in makes matters more complicated than that, and context is everything:
Two problems, and activism, not compassion vs intolerance, are at the core of both of them:
:
One, there is a new paradigm in town
In the original paradigm, the M-F distinction exists to reflect the fact that you can participate in procreation in only one of two ways. each associated with markers that are present at birth. Unsurprisingly, societies have noted this, and created complex social norms and rituals without knowing anything about chromosomes genes or gametes and without becoming confused by the fact that some people are different is some ways. Here womanhood is not something distributed by acts of kindness, but a distinction of enormous significance across wide ranging disciplines and issues. Anyone presenting with gender dysphoria should be treated with compassion and evidence based care, which will also remain completely open to an examination of the causes of the phenomenon. Social contracts can be negotiated, and interest groups are free to develop any codes of conduct they want amongst themselves. But crucial distinctions are upheld in language.
That paradigm is now challenged, and while many Biden appointees have not had the courage to articulate what it is in front of congress, Maya Wiley, in a recent interaction with Nancy Mace, actually answered the notorious question of what a woman is: “A woman is a person who says she is”, and she continued: “and let me just tell you a story..”
This is revealing both of strategy - tell stories - and of what the core of the paradigm is. It is rooted in social justice ideology. From a logical standpoint a circular definition is put forward. But the rhetorical trick is two-fold: to create the impression that something self-evident, something to be accepted at face value is being said. And secondly, relying on established meaning in order to immediately subvert it! Such methods are necessary, we are told, because the binary is “oppressive” - even in this day and age. Well, nobody likes oppression, but what is left? It becomes self-ID, you are what you claim you are. Is that new paradigm really better than the old one?
Smart people, some of whom have lived experiences of female vulnerability, like J.K Rowling, spotted the problem and noted the asymmetry in consequences for men vs women: The category has been hacked wide open. And the issue has been inserted into a toxic culture war where aggressive activism pushes a non-negotiable binary: you are with us or against us. If you don’t uncritically download the new paradigm you are a transphobe.
Which brings us to the second problem: the trans phenomenon cannot be reduced to simplistic narratives insinuating simple solutions. There are many manifestations, and reasons why someone might claim womanhood, Those differences have social consequences.
Scandinavian and other countries are coming to the realization that the profiles of those presenting as trans have changed and multiplied, and that we do not yet fully grasp the implications of that. They have noted that best evidentiary practices have been bypassed, something that is also the unfortunate consequence of activism.
Some say that this is about gender, not sex, but there is no consistency here, except that the social significance of sex-differences is being undermined. If the same terms are used, confusion will ensue, and has. You have someone like the former Scottish first minister stutteringly trying to articulate what the problem is with allowing rapists into woman prisons. So if your intention is to create clarity, another approach is needed.
So let’s not establish social contracts forced upon us by activism. Let there be room for people to be situationally kind as they see fit, but not be seen as unkind if they have questions. These are muddy waters now.
Yes. Glenn plays the devil's advocate well (but safely ducks offering a personal opinion). John dives in, claims it's a challenging issue, and so wants to default to kindness. He then somehow claims the usage of language is "just skin" and there is a deeper reality, defined by the individual. But really, John's thinking is appallingly shallow. He's playing a surface level technical linguist here, acknowledging the abuses but claiming that the language has nothing to do with it. That's ridiculous. The shared reality we know is what he dismisses as a simplistic view of chromosomes. The modern, "civil" way of looking at it is more complicated, to the point that it is "wise" to not be able to define the term woman. That is precisely the domain of language and law, which John casually abandons.
Do any of you think these guys have a goal? If so, what is it? Does anyone in here have a goal as to why you are here? Because here's the deal: If you've got a goal, on what basis do you measure progress? Asking "is any of this working?" would be a damn good place to start. Consider this response I received a couple years ago:
"I actually disagree with your take. I think all 3 (1619, Kaepernick, and BLM) were extremely successful as far as attention being brought to what so many Black Americans have on their collective mind." To which I replied, 7 years of Black Lives Matter and the increasing level of attention is the first thing that comes to mind as a measure of success?
"Never mistake activity for achievement" -- as John Wooden perfectly put it. That's the mistake that guy was making -- which is same mistake that all of America makes on a daily basis. Consider this example regarding a popular book: "Building on his enormously successful first edition. Tom Nichols confirms his thesis and proves that the assault on expertise has only intensified."
So, outside of selling books and building a following, you didn’t succeed — at all. But who cares about the efficacy of your efforts when failure is a pretty profitable enterprise these days. When a deservingly popular book didn’t make a dent in 7 years (and everything’s gotten worse to boot): I fail to understand the excitement for an expanded edition doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of making a dent either.
In this speech https://youtu.be/8IEsCnsSnxg, Loury said the following:
"We stood there in the summer of 1984. . . . Two decades had passed since the heyday of the civil rights achievements of the 1960s. It was time to take stock. Where have we blacks gotten ourselves to? I asked . . . High up in the speech throwing down the gauntlet came my signature declaration, the Civil Rights Movement is over, I asserted. I claimed that the problems of the lower classes of African American society plagued by poverty and joblessness were, at the end of the day, not remediable by the means which had been so effective in the 1960s of protest and petitioning for fair treatment.
What we now faced, I suggested, was a new American dilemma. The formulation I ultimately settled on contrasted an enemy without, that would be white racism, with an enemy within — black society."
“The Civil Rights Movement is over” — in 1984! That — took guts. I don't see anything like that in Loury today. And since I've dealt with him one-on-one and you probably haven't -- maybe I know something about him that you don't. "It was time to take stock." Ya know, like "Is any of this working?" We could change all that -- and you could be part of making a real impact with measurable progress. But you're busy -- endlessly rehashing the same old problems in the same old ways.
“To Call Each Thing by Its Right Name”: Part 1
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/06/11/to-call-each-thing-by-its-right-name-part-1/
John wants us to lie about reality. I guess when someone exclaims they are a dog that will be fine too.. how far does it go John. A man says he’s a child so he can play with girls? Is that ok too and we will need to respect his wishes of calling him a child? It’s now men in women locker rooms and sports..and we are suppose to deny that reality?
It’s ok to use the justice system unlawfully to take out a political opponent? I suppose the racist justice system in the KKK south was also ok? They could justify it the same as you. I’m sure they used the same adjectives you use in describing Trump the KKK used in describing black people. The Democrat party is the same as it always was, John just proved it.
And still has not read any of the research re Jan 6th? Nothing? 200 plus uncover agents who actually broke windows, wore colored wrist bands to be identified, had FBI informants dressed in Trump gear and still can’t figure out what that really was. NO John we are not Democrats we don’t spend the summer of love burning buildings, killing people or subverting an election honey..we leave that to your kind.
John McWhorter should be prosecuted. It is a crime to call for the assassination of a President. It is NOT free-speech to encourage violence. An academic suggesting that murder is a good solution indicates indecent, immoral bankruptcy and intellectual vacancy. The 'black guys' image on the Glenn Show has been destroyed and black stereotypical perspectives can now be applied to John McWhorter. John should resign.
I have recounted to friends John's comments calling for someone to kill Trump and they find it hard to believe that he actually said this. Did John make these comments in writing, are they available somewhere you can point me to?
Sorry, Glenn, you don't get to blame Trump on the Democrats' shortcomings. Man up and admit that the conservative side, mostly on the farther right, has become utterly deranged. John is spot-on in laying out everything that's wrong with Donald Trump and if you and Trump's fanboys and fangirls could think even slightly critically on this subject you'd see that Trump is in fact, as John points out, the least qualified person to ever run for President. Plus he's a moral nightmare and a wannabe autocrat. Even though he'll never pull it off the *desire* is extremely troubling. If you people don't get your dictator this time around, who will it be next time? That desire for dictatorship on the right is what bothers me more than that half-assed orange-haired bananas Republican.
You have Trump Denial Syndrome, Glenn. And the call is coming from *inside the house*, not Democrat Headquarters.
Now, I do think the predictions that Donald Trump will destroy democracy and install himself as Dictator forLife are overblown. In fact, I have Trump Fatigue Syndrome - I no longer believe anything ominous I hear about Trump. I don't like him; I'm not gonna vote for him; and if he gets elected, I don't have to live with him because I'm in Canada now, and I'm not going to feel sorry for America, since both sides have been campaigning heavily for him. I think the Democrats have been handed a gift the other night with Biden's performance in the debate; they can eject him for someone else in August and Trump will likely lose. But I'm not sure they're smart enough to do that, or pick someone who's not uber-woke.
I got so fed up with the 'dictatorship' crap that I Googled it and found a good argument for why it's never gonna happen from someone who lived in a democracy that eventually became a dictatorship. And he says eight years isn't nearly enough time esp with a break in between.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/01/28/a-trump-dictatorship-is-possible-but-not-in-four-years-00137949
But seriously, Glenn, y'all have *no* moral argument here with Trump. I often wonder whether the founding fathers didn't put something in the Constitution about how the President can't be a convicted felon. As much as they privately disdained the intellect of the colonist masses, maybe they didn't think Americans could possibly, ever be THAT stupid.
Don't call for his death, but for f's sake, wo/man up and demand better from your party. Is Trump seriously the BEST person you have to offer?
Trump derangement syndrome at its finest!
Trump Denial Syndrome at its finest!
Leftist ignorance at its finest!!
The "no, you are" defense (the height of "conversation" today). You people are just sharp as a razor. I can beat the hell out of Democrats all day long and I don't need childish lingo like “Democrat Party” to do it. Just what do you think such language is designed to do? It’s Indoctrination 101. Criticize ’em all day long (I don’t care — as long as it’s on the merits). But Jesus, just act your age!
I don't approve of "Denial Syndrome" of any kind -- so my standard applies to "Grow Some Labia" as well. Nevertheless, she constructed an argument -- you did not (nor did DocH).
"Trump derangement syndrome at its finest!" is not an argument (nor is countering with "Trump Denial Syndrome at its finest!" or "Leftist ignorance at its finest!!). And you think adding an extra exclamation point adds weight to your childish and colossally trite comeback?
All that aside: You no doubt have valid points to offer (just as "Grow Some Labia" does and everyone else in here). But rather than consider the arguments (in part or in full) -- you outright dismiss them over what you perceive about the person. That's prejudice by definition.
Lemme show you what argument really looks like. And of course, instead of listening and learning -- your kind complains about the heavy burden of having to think things through. Your "kind" is on the Left & Right (where bullshit is just a matter of branding).
*************************************************
First time I ever heard of John McWhorter was in a 2017 interview, in which he said about Trump: “He has a rather narcotic joy in dismissal and belittlement.” As The Donald is a symptom of the cancer that America has become, chances are — so do you. 20 years ago, it would have been impossible for him to be seriously considered, let alone win. If you’re not lookin’ into that, you’re not lookin’. But why bother when it’s so much easier to cry foul over “TDS”?
Do you know where the term “Trump Derangement Syndrome” originates from? I didn’t ask you what it is — I asked if you know the origin of the term. You’ve probably heard of yellowcake — how about uranium hexafluoride? Does calling someone a “Bush hater” strike you as a valid counter to that question? And yet that’s exactly what Bush apologists did when systematic self-delusion was in its infancy in the “Information” Age. Your kind has been playing that hate-card crap for decades. “Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Plamegate” & plenty more. Adding to the arsenal of childish crap to continue the tradition: “Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party.”
Stirring defense!
And about that uranium hexafluoride (on a matter of world-altering consequence that shaped everything you see today): That story goes straight to the top with who’s in the White House right now — on very specific culpability to boot (which means your “whataboutism” bullshit goes right out the window with me). I’m well aware of the Left’s ludicrous ways of woke, rigging race-related incidents, and how they play the hate card when it comes to protecting their own. “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is not an argument any more than “Bush hater” — just as “everybody believed Iraq had WMD” is not an argument any more than “armed only with Skittles.”
“God can’t make square circles” but you think you can. Even the Almighty can’t make something it is not. But thanks to the internet and the cable clans paving the way for the onslaught of the utterly absurd — you can shapeshift anything or anyone into what you want to see: Even making saints out of people with a patently obvious history of hypocrisy and lies.
“A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.” That quote’s been around in various forms for over 300 years (evidently the original being from 1710): “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect.” I know the feeling, all too well! Just as I know the futility of coming here in the hope of having a larger conversation with people primarily interested in entertaining themselves. Social media (a.k.a. Safe-Space Central) — is gluttony under the guise of concern. It’s a sham and it always has been.
“Until the rise of podcasts, twitter, and the various forms of independent media / journalism, people weren’t really aware how legacy media was influencing their thinking. I think people are finally waking up and may surprise you here, especially if more talk about it.”
New formats for funneling information that caters to your cravings is not what I’d call enlightened. And those who couldn’t spot clearly dishonest actors before — think they’re wide awake now? The Twitter bio behind that quote begins with “Groupthink averse.” It would never occur to him that everything in that Tweet is Groupthink 101. “Substack Is a Scam in the Same Way That All Media Is”:
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/12/02/substack-is-a-scam-in-the-same-way-that-all-media-is-2/
Just as outrage industries crying foul over McWhorter’s implication about “assignation” — while you flagrantly ignore WHY he said it (writing off any and all criticism as “TDS” — like your kin who came before you). To be clear, questioning McWhorter's "overture" is fair game — I'm simply saying it's part of a larger game (one in which you're all being played — Left & Right).
The following quote captures far more than the source of it comprehends. It would never dawn on him that he helped create the ugliness he so beautifully articulated:
“The thing that is most disturbing to me, in a sea of disturbing things — is that there is no opportunity in all of humanity, to observe the world we live in, and to see all the scope of life in the world, like being President of the United States. You sit there, and for 4 years, or for 8 years — the crème de la crème of society is presented to you. ‘Here’s the bravest man and woman in the military. Here’s the smart scientists. Here’s the most dedicated children in their learning.’ You get to see the ugliest . . . what are terrorists doing in torture camps. You see the world from a vista that only a man, or one day a woman, can have that outlook.
And I thought to myself: “Surely, when he won . . . he would change as a result of that.” Every day, you’re having meetings and talking to serious people. And then you come into the Oval Office to “Here’s the winners of the Spelling Bee of San Diego.” . . . And you meet these people, and life just comes washing over you. Your heart and your mind open up. What a learning experience — how much you learn about the world. And I thought, “It’s gonna change him.” . . . He didn’t change one f#%@g gram!”
That says a helluva lot more about America than it does about Trump. Who said it? Does it matter? To defenders of the indefensible — oh yeah! Because the source is what you’d seize on to deflect and deny the obvious: Then go right back to bitching about the opposition doing the same. I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong: I’m saying your staggering hypocrisy is sickening and so is the other side’s.
Which is why this conversation’s going nowhere — and I just wasted $6 on an exercise in futility. Lemme save you some time. The first word that doesn’t reflect someone seeking in-depth discussion, will be the last word I read.
“The crude, dirty ‘brutes’ of the land of the Houyhnhnms in Gulliver’s Travels. The Yahoos are irrational people and represent the worst side of humanity. By contrast, the wise and gentle Houyhnhnms, their masters, are rational horses and represent humanity at its best.”
Just Where Do I Go to Find In-Depth Discussion in a World of Yahoos Who Think They’re Houyhnhnms? https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/05/25/just-where-do-i-go-to-find-in-depth-discussion-in-a-world-of-yahoos-who-think-theyre-houyhnhnms/
*************************************************
Glenn is spot on. To think you had to look up whether it is possible for someone in their late 70's, who has not been involved with politics, who has no army/military might behind him - could or would become a "dictator"?! Really? Just think it through - walk me through how that happens. It doesn't. John has the same (irrational) fear. He's joined the group just like everyone else.
This comment is for Jakon Joi if he happens to read comments. (It's also for anyone who recognizes that our current method of providing "justice" is neither effective in deterring crime, nor does it meet the needs of the victims). I'm so sorry for your loss. Even the people who commit a murder often don't know why they did it. But as a prisoner in this documentary says, "Hurt people hurt others." He did so without deflecting responsibility, because he has come to recognize that just because you yourself are a victim does not justify hurting others. Jakon, you sound like somebody who wants to both heal, and also to use your experience to help others, perhaps by finding more effective ways to mete out justice. Glenn gave you some great advice to seek out others in similar circumstances. I also encourage you to watch this film ($3.00 to rent, $6.00 to buy; best money I've ever spent). It might give you some additional ideas, and perhaps you will be inspired by Agnes. The trailer is in the first link, and a brief article about it is in the second link. All the best.
http://talwegproduction.com/en/films/another-justice/
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2017/02/07/french-film-another-justice-shows-local-womans-path-forgiveness/97603316/
First time I ever heard of John McWhorter was in a 2017 interview, in which he said about Trump: “He has a rather narcotic joy in dismissal and belittlement.” As The Donald is a symptom of the cancer that America has become, chances are — so do you. 20 years ago, it would have been impossible for him to be seriously considered, let alone win. If you’re not lookin’ into that, you’re not lookin’. But why bother when it’s so much easier to cry foul over “TDS”?
Do you know where the term “Trump Derangement Syndrome” originates from? I didn’t ask you what it is — I asked if you know the origin of the term. You’ve probably heard of yellowcake — how about uranium hexafluoride? Does calling someone a “Bush hater” strike you as a valid counter to that question? And yet that’s exactly what Bush apologists did when systematic self-delusion was in its infancy in the “Information” Age. Your kind has been playing that hate-card crap for decades. “Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Plamegate” & plenty more. Adding to the arsenal of childish crap to continue the tradition: “Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party.”
Stirring defense!
And about that uranium hexafluoride (on a matter of world-altering consequence that shaped everything you see today): That story goes straight to the top with who’s in the White House right now — on very specific culpability to boot (which means your “whataboutism” bullshit goes right out the window with me). I’m well aware of the Left’s ludicrous ways of woke, rigging race-related incidents, and how they play the hate card when it comes to protecting their own. “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is not an argument any more than “Bush hater” — just as “everybody believed Iraq had WMD” is not an argument any more than “armed only with Skittles.”
“God can’t make square circles” but you think you can. Even the Almighty can’t make something it is not. But thanks to the internet and the cable clans paving the way for the onslaught of the utterly absurd — you can shapeshift anything or anyone into what you want to see: Even making saints out of people with a patently obvious history of hypocrisy and lies.
“A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.” That quote’s been around in various forms for over 300 years (evidently the original being from 1710): “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect.” I know the feeling, all too well! Just as I know the futility of coming here in the hope of having a larger conversation with people primarily interested in entertaining themselves. Social media (a.k.a. Safe-Space Central) — is gluttony under the guise of concern. It’s a sham and it always has been.
“Until the rise of podcasts, twitter, and the various forms of independent media / journalism, people weren’t really aware how legacy media was influencing their thinking. I think people are finally waking up and may surprise you here, especially if more talk about it.”
New formats for funneling information that caters to your cravings is not what I’d call enlightened. And those who couldn’t spot clearly dishonest actors before — think they’re wide awake now? The Twitter bio behind that quote begins with “Groupthink averse.” It would never occur to him that everything in that Tweet is Groupthink 101. “Substack Is a Scam in the Same Way That All Media Is”:
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/12/02/substack-is-a-scam-in-the-same-way-that-all-media-is-2/
Just as outrage industries crying foul over McWhorter’s implication about “assignation” — while you flagrantly ignore WHY he said it (writing off any and all criticism as “TDS” — like your kin who came before you). To be clear, questioning McWhorter's "overture" is fair game — I'm simply saying it's part of a larger game (one in which you're all being played — Left & Right).
The following quote captures far more than the source of it comprehends. It would never dawn on him that he helped create the ugliness he so beautifully articulated:
“The thing that is most disturbing to me, in a sea of disturbing things — is that there is no opportunity in all of humanity, to observe the world we live in, and to see all the scope of life in the world, like being President of the United States. You sit there, and for 4 years, or for 8 years — the crème de la crème of society is presented to you. ‘Here’s the bravest man and woman in the military. Here’s the smart scientists. Here’s the most dedicated children in their learning.’ You get to see the ugliest . . . what are terrorists doing in torture camps. You see the world from a vista that only a man, or one day a woman, can have that outlook.
And I thought to myself: “Surely, when he won . . . he would change as a result of that.” Every day, you’re having meetings and talking to serious people. And then you come into the Oval Office to “Here’s the winners of the Spelling Bee of San Diego.” . . . And you meet these people, and life just comes washing over you. Your heart and your mind open up. What a learning experience — how much you learn about the world. And I thought, “It’s gonna change him.” . . . He didn’t change one f#%@g gram!”
That says a helluva lot more about America than it does about Trump. Who said it? Does it matter? To defenders of the indefensible — oh yeah! Because the source is what you’d seize on to deflect and deny the obvious: Then go right back to bitching about the opposition doing the same. I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong: I’m saying your staggering hypocrisy is sickening and so is the other side’s.
Which is why this conversation’s going nowhere — and I just wasted $6 on an exercise in futility. Lemme save you some time. The first word that doesn’t reflect someone seeking in-depth discussion, will be the last word I read.
“The crude, dirty ‘brutes’ of the land of the Houyhnhnms in Gulliver’s Travels. The Yahoos are irrational people and represent the worst side of humanity. By contrast, the wise and gentle Houyhnhnms, their masters, are rational horses and represent humanity at its best.”
Just Where Do I Go to Find In-Depth Discussion in a World of Yahoos Who Think They’re Houyhnhnms? https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/05/25/just-where-do-i-go-to-find-in-depth-discussion-in-a-world-of-yahoos-who-think-theyre-houyhnhnms/
Glenn, just so you know, the way you use the word "delusion" to apply to people who are transgender is not the way psychologists use the word delusion. (Look it up on the APA website if you want to know the psychological definition of the word). If a transgender female who is a cis male insists that he has one Y chromosome and one X chromosome, that would be a delusion. But that is not what transgender people believe. They are referring to their psychology, not their biology. Hopefully you know that all humans are more than just their biology. If not, perhaps have another conversation with your awesome son. :)
To prevent others from having to google for your definition, I'll repaste it here: "an often highly personal idea or belief system, not endorsed by one's culture or subculture, that is maintained with conviction in spite of irrationality or evidence to the contrary" Interestingly, gender ideology would not be a APA-defined delusion solely because of the first condition - *endorsed by one's culture or subculture*. It appears that APA is focusing on individual delusions, while the standard dictionary definition does not have that condition, and includes mass/social delusions, and could fit here.
You're using a broad brush to claim that all transgender people are referring to their psychology, not their biology. I'd think many may even label that view transphobic. The common conception is that there is a gendered property, akin to a soul - something that transcends biology and psychology. From his comments, even John seems to accept this. Where this causes conflict is that this is then brought to bear on the physical world, requesting treatment as biological women. The issue is when this concept of gender is used to change real world policies that have always been linked to sex only, because of the clear differences in physical reality.
First, you're right that psychologists only diagnose individuals, not groups. They may examine environmental influences on behavior, but generally the DSM doesn't focus on them except to say "rule them out" (e.g., a specific learning disability can't be caused by a lack of appropriate instruction). As for the Oxford Dictionary definition of delusion, it says, "a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, occurring especially in mental conditions. He began to experience hallucinations, delusions, anxiety, and agitation along with dizziness and nausea." Transgenderism also does not meet the plain old dictionary definition of delusion, either. Transgender people fully understand their biological reality, and that it conflicts with the way they feel, which I refer to as psychology. You said, "The common conception is that there is a gendered property, akin to a soul - something that transcends biology and psychology." Where is the research to support the idea that this conception is common, and among whom specifically? I didn't hear John say anything about a soul, or any aspect of self that is neither biological nor psychological, whatever that may be. (I suspect transgender people are no more religious than the average American, especially since they are mostly rejected by religions, but I don't think that's been studied). You said that this could fit the definition of a "mass/social delusion." So you think transgender folks are delusional? Who is being transphobic now? You are promoting the social contagion theory of the far right which has been discredited by research. (link #1 below), or for a deeper dive into the debunking, listen to the 3 part podcast of "Maintenance Phase" podcast (link #2)
https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/21888/Study-finds-no-evidence-of-social-contagion-among?autologincheck=redirected
https://maintenancephase.buzzsprout.com/
Interesting counter; it is very difficult to clearly communicate core ideas with such a heated topic, and when the underlying conceptions of the issue are so at odds. Up front - I think "delusion" is too loaded and not helpful in this context. Notably Glenn also distanced himself from offering any view at all by playing his devil's advocate stance when using this term. John seems to object to delusion because trans-identifying people do not appear delusional in other areas… "beyond" the exact issue we are discussing.
I see the term transphobic as a likewise loaded, unhelpful term; used primarily as a means to stifle vital discussion - the very discussion that John acknowledges needs to be had, regarding the "abuses" in areas like women's sports and "out of hand gender transitioning." I used it only pointing out that I see many instances on the more activist side which use this term as a catchall smear intended to stop discussion.
John would like to completely separate those issues from the simple civility of referring to someone as they wish to be referred, and focus solely on the latter. There is certainly a point to be made here, but he vastly underestimates the power of language in shaping our view of reality, including policy and law. John declares "obviously male and female are biological categories" - yet you mentioned "transgender female" referring to a male - and this is a perfect example of how language use can blur the line between sex and gender.
Reducing one's felt identity to psychology, I think would be an affront to many among the transgender activists, who would label such a reduction as transphobic. If it is indeed a solely psychological condition, the approach of physical body modification (to put it kindly) to accommodate this would be a severe departure from how any other issue would be handled.
The very conception of gender identity, is what I'm referring to as akin to a gendered soul. That's an analysis, similarly actually to John's labeling of "woke religion".
Regarding John's views - on a relisten he doesn't seem to fully accept the concept, but rather urges us to just honor it. He did attribute the idea that "identity soars above those things [chromosomes]" to "people" that he isn't comfortable with saying are delusional (trans-identifying people?), and didn't express this himself. John doesn't accept that he's "assenting to craziness" but also asserted that one's sense of gender identity is "frankly just as real" as the sex distinction. Depending on our definitions of reality, that can be fine, but only if there is no utility in sex distinction. If there is a need for societal protections/distinctions for females, and I contend there is, there is a need to stick to the "elementary" biological definition. This may cause an uncomfortable conflict, and hurt some people's feelings, but denying that we have to truly examine that is a serious problem.
This is too long already, but to close - no, saying there is an element of social contagion in this phenomenon is neither "of the far right" nor "debunked". Did you read the first article closely? There are many leaps to reach a conclusion - and it is focusing solely on their estimate of proportion of male to female proportions as they tried to derive from survey responses. There of course are different pathways and reasons for any individual to transition, and trying to use a derived overall ratio across all transitioners to claim that a certain driver is or isn't happening doesn't make sense. In any case there is also plenty of data which suggests otherwise (one such study: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Ratios-of-assigned-male-at-birth-AMAB-compared-to-assigned-female-at-birth-AFAB-for_fig1_371853540 )
I agree with Glenn about the Democratic Party, the FDR coalition that governed the country has long since dissolved. The Democratic Party has become a Party of coastal elites pushing forth unpopular social policies. The Republicans are no better pushing their brand of unpopular social and economic policies. I cannot, however, explain away Trump, to vote for Trump is to give into frustration and abandon the American project in many fundamental ways. Trump is his allows characters like Alexander Spellane (Fisher Capital Group) to give a sales pitch before his rallies to sell overpriced silver and gold. I think this exemplifies I who Trump is, a true-blue American shyster.
I just lost respect for John McWhorter. To wish someone assassinated is beyond the pale in a democratic free society. He has something beyond TDS -- his views are frightful
First time I ever heard of John McWhorter was in a 2017 interview, in which he said about Trump: “He has a rather narcotic joy in dismissal and belittlement.” As The Donald is a symptom of the cancer that America has become, chances are — so do you. 20 years ago, it would have been impossible for him to be seriously considered, let alone win. If you’re not lookin’ into that, you’re not lookin’. But why bother when it’s so much easier to cry foul over “TDS”?
Do you know where the term “Trump Derangement Syndrome” originates from? I didn’t ask you what it is — I asked if you know the origin of the term. You’ve probably heard of yellowcake — how about uranium hexafluoride? Does calling someone a “Bush hater” strike you as a valid counter to that question? And yet that’s exactly what Bush apologists did when systematic self-delusion was in its infancy in the “Information” Age. Your kind has been playing that hate-card crap for decades. “Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Plamegate” & plenty more. Adding to the arsenal of childish crap to continue the tradition: “Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party.”
Stirring defense!
And about that uranium hexafluoride (on a matter of world-altering consequence that shaped everything you see today): That story goes straight to the top with who’s in the White House right now — on very specific culpability to boot (which means your “whataboutism” bullshit goes right out the window with me). I’m well aware of the Left’s ludicrous ways of woke, rigging race-related incidents, and how they play the hate card when it comes to protecting their own. “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is not an argument any more than “Bush hater” — just as “everybody believed Iraq had WMD” is not an argument any more than “armed only with Skittles.”
“God can’t make square circles” but you think you can. Even the Almighty can’t make something it is not. But thanks to the internet and the cable clans paving the way for the onslaught of the utterly absurd — you can shapeshift anything or anyone into what you want to see: Even making saints out of people with a patently obvious history of hypocrisy and lies.
“A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.” That quote’s been around in various forms for over 300 years (evidently the original being from 1710): “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect.” I know the feeling, all too well! Just as I know the futility of coming here in the hope of having a larger conversation with people primarily interested in entertaining themselves. Social media (a.k.a. Safe-Space Central) — is gluttony under the guise of concern. It’s a sham and it always has been.
“Until the rise of podcasts, twitter, and the various forms of independent media / journalism, people weren’t really aware how legacy media was influencing their thinking. I think people are finally waking up and may surprise you here, especially if more talk about it.”
New formats for funneling information that caters to your cravings is not what I’d call enlightened. And those who couldn’t spot clearly dishonest actors before — think they’re wide awake now? The Twitter bio behind that quote begins with “Groupthink averse.” It would never occur to him that everything in that Tweet is Groupthink 101. “Substack Is a Scam in the Same Way That All Media Is”:
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/12/02/substack-is-a-scam-in-the-same-way-that-all-media-is-2/
Just as outrage industries crying foul over McWhorter’s implication about “assignation” — while you flagrantly ignore WHY he said it (writing off any and all criticism as “TDS” — like your kin who came before you). To be clear, questioning McWhorter's "overture" is fair game — I'm simply saying it's part of a larger game (one in which you're all being played — Left & Right).
The following quote captures far more than the source of it comprehends. It would never dawn on him that he helped create the ugliness he so beautifully articulated:
“The thing that is most disturbing to me, in a sea of disturbing things — is that there is no opportunity in all of humanity, to observe the world we live in, and to see all the scope of life in the world, like being President of the United States. You sit there, and for 4 years, or for 8 years — the crème de la crème of society is presented to you. ‘Here’s the bravest man and woman in the military. Here’s the smart scientists. Here’s the most dedicated children in their learning.’ You get to see the ugliest . . . what are terrorists doing in torture camps. You see the world from a vista that only a man, or one day a woman, can have that outlook.
And I thought to myself: “Surely, when he won . . . he would change as a result of that.” Every day, you’re having meetings and talking to serious people. And then you come into the Oval Office to “Here’s the winners of the Spelling Bee of San Diego.” . . . And you meet these people, and life just comes washing over you. Your heart and your mind open up. What a learning experience — how much you learn about the world. And I thought, “It’s gonna change him.” . . . He didn’t change one f#%@g gram!”
That says a helluva lot more about America than it does about Trump. Who said it? Does it matter? To defenders of the indefensible — oh yeah! Because the source is what you’d seize on to deflect and deny the obvious: Then go right back to bitching about the opposition doing the same. I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong: I’m saying your staggering hypocrisy is sickening and so is the other side’s.
Which is why this conversation’s going nowhere — and I just wasted $6 on an exercise in futility. Lemme save you some time. The first word that doesn’t reflect someone seeking in-depth discussion, will be the last word I read.
“The crude, dirty ‘brutes’ of the land of the Houyhnhnms in Gulliver’s Travels. The Yahoos are irrational people and represent the worst side of humanity. By contrast, the wise and gentle Houyhnhnms, their masters, are rational horses and represent humanity at its best.”
Just Where Do I Go to Find In-Depth Discussion in a World of Yahoos Who Think They’re Houyhnhnms? https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/05/25/just-where-do-i-go-to-find-in-depth-discussion-in-a-world-of-yahoos-who-think-theyre-houyhnhnms/
One of the most powerful episodes of the Glenn Show podcast. John McWhorter apologizing in the beginning for his comments about Trump getting assassinated. And then it ends with a tragic story and lesson about the human condition having no color. I stated the phrase-"Oh My God" once Glenn mentioned the death of Jakon Joi's father. I have no other words to share.
Adopting someone else's delusion is called folie à deux. Seems like this psychiatric syndrome is being imposed on others in pronoun use (they, zir). Alternatively we can simply be patronizing.
John disputes initially being labeled as having Trump Derangement Syndrome and then proceeds to display it. Pretty funny.
John considers himself too smart to have "TDS" - I actually agree with that and am surprised that he cannot see beyond his own emotional reactions. I honestly expect more from John!
I know. Maybe it's all an act. If it's an act, it has gotten tedious.
You'd think a person might temper his disdain with recognition that under Trump the border was not the mess it is now. That we didn't have two serious wars underway. Maybe show a curiosity about the 51 former intelligence officials who lied about the laptop being "Russian disinformation." Maybe notice some oddities in the lawfare launched against Trump. You don't have to wave a Trump flag, but maybe just sit down and take deep breath.
Snopes, after nearly seven years, is finally acknowledging that the Fine People Hoax was and always has been a hoax. A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. I wish John -- or the character he is playing if that is the case -- would take that step.
I have been following Glenn and John for about 5 years now. IMHO, at some level they are both playing us. It was amusing for a while but as you note is becoming more tedious as time passes. I've wondered why they would do this. Can one make enough money from a successful Substack to make this worthwhile? Maybe you can if you through in hawking your latest book.
Giving both Glenn and John the benefit of the doubt as rigorous scholars in their respective fields, I have been disappointed at their lack of rigor when venturing into areas that they are not expert in.
Now THAT is an intelligent comment (and how refreshing). Congratulations! In over 3 years of writing extensively on that concern and so much more, you're only the 2nd person I've seen who started wondering in such ways. Now, if you wanna do something about it -- hear me out. Below is the comment I wrote for this topic today, but there's a ton more where that came from:
******************
First time I ever heard of John McWhorter was in a 2017 interview, in which he said about Trump: “He has a rather narcotic joy in dismissal and belittlement.” As The Donald is a symptom of the cancer that America has become, chances are — so do you. 20 years ago, it would have been impossible for him to be seriously considered, let alone win. If you’re not lookin’ into that, you’re not lookin’. But why bother when it’s so much easier to cry foul over “TDS”?
Do you know where the term “Trump Derangement Syndrome” originates from? I didn’t ask you what it is — I asked if you know the origin of the term. You’ve probably heard of yellowcake — how about uranium hexafluoride? Does calling someone a “Bush hater” strike you as a valid counter to that question? And yet that’s exactly what Bush apologists did when systematic self-delusion was in its infancy in the “Information” Age. Your kind has been playing that hate-card crap for decades. “Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Plamegate” & plenty more. Adding to the arsenal of childish crap to continue the tradition: “Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party.”
Stirring defense!
And about that uranium hexafluoride (on a matter of world-altering consequence that shaped everything you see today): That story goes straight to the top with who’s in the White House right now — on very specific culpability to boot (which means your “whataboutism” bullshit goes right out the window with me). I’m well aware of the Left’s ludicrous ways of woke, rigging race-related incidents, and how they play the hate card when it comes to protecting their own. “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is not an argument any more than “Bush hater” — just as “everybody believed Iraq had WMD” is not an argument any more than “armed only with Skittles.”
“God can’t make square circles” but you think you can. Even the Almighty can’t make something it is not. But thanks to the internet and the cable clans paving the way for the onslaught of the utterly absurd — you can shapeshift anything or anyone into what you want to see: Even making saints out of people with a patently obvious history of hypocrisy and lies.
“A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.” That quote’s been around in various forms for over 300 years (evidently the original being from 1710): “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect.” I know the feeling, all too well! Just as I know the futility of coming here in the hope of having a larger conversation with people primarily interested in entertaining themselves. Social media (a.k.a. Safe-Space Central) — is gluttony under the guise of concern. It’s a sham and it always has been.
“Until the rise of podcasts, twitter, and the various forms of independent media / journalism, people weren’t really aware how legacy media was influencing their thinking. I think people are finally waking up and may surprise you here, especially if more talk about it.”
New formats for funneling information that caters to your cravings is not what I’d call enlightened. And those who couldn’t spot clearly dishonest actors before — think they’re wide awake now? The Twitter bio behind that quote begins with “Groupthink averse.” It would never occur to him that everything in that Tweet is Groupthink 101. “Substack Is a Scam in the Same Way That All Media Is”:
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/12/02/substack-is-a-scam-in-the-same-way-that-all-media-is-2/
Just as outrage industries crying foul over McWhorter’s implication about “assignation” — while you flagrantly ignore WHY he said it (writing off any and all criticism as “TDS” — like your kin who came before you). To be clear, questioning McWhorter's "overture" is fair game — I'm simply saying it's part of a larger game (one in which you're all being played — Left & Right).
The following quote captures far more than the source of it comprehends. It would never dawn on him that he helped create the ugliness he so beautifully articulated:
“The thing that is most disturbing to me, in a sea of disturbing things — is that there is no opportunity in all of humanity, to observe the world we live in, and to see all the scope of life in the world, like being President of the United States. You sit there, and for 4 years, or for 8 years — the crème de la crème of society is presented to you. ‘Here’s the bravest man and woman in the military. Here’s the smart scientists. Here’s the most dedicated children in their learning.’ You get to see the ugliest . . . what are terrorists doing in torture camps. You see the world from a vista that only a man, or one day a woman, can have that outlook.
And I thought to myself: “Surely, when he won . . . he would change as a result of that.” Every day, you’re having meetings and talking to serious people. And then you come into the Oval Office to “Here’s the winners of the Spelling Bee of San Diego.” . . . And you meet these people, and life just comes washing over you. Your heart and your mind open up. What a learning experience — how much you learn about the world. And I thought, “It’s gonna change him.” . . . He didn’t change one f#%@g gram!”
That says a helluva lot more about America than it does about Trump. Who said it? Does it matter? To defenders of the indefensible — oh yeah! Because the source is what you’d seize on to deflect and deny the obvious: Then go right back to bitching about the opposition doing the same. I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong: I’m saying your staggering hypocrisy is sickening and so is the other side’s.
Which is why this conversation’s going nowhere — and I just wasted $6 on an exercise in futility. Lemme save you some time. The first word that doesn’t reflect someone seeking in-depth discussion, will be the last word I read.
“The crude, dirty ‘brutes’ of the land of the Houyhnhnms in Gulliver’s Travels. The Yahoos are irrational people and represent the worst side of humanity. By contrast, the wise and gentle Houyhnhnms, their masters, are rational horses and represent humanity at its best.”
Just Where Do I Go to Find In-Depth Discussion in a World of Yahoos Who Think They’re Houyhnhnms? https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/05/25/just-where-do-i-go-to-find-in-depth-discussion-in-a-world-of-yahoos-who-think-theyre-houyhnhnms/
I'm going to cut Glenn a little more slack, especially about the book. Hawking a book kind of comes with the territory. I think it's more about getting the book in front of people than in making money off of sales. That said...
I've been following them about the same period of time. There seems less of an edge. Maybe people are more willing to cover the same territory now. Maybe we've built up immunity. Whatever the case, it definitely seems softer to me.
Seems to me, they used to cover more current events. There was some outrage or other to discuss every month. Maybe that has grown stale. Maybe the MSM doesn't pump out those stories like they once did. Or maybe three conversations a month is too many.
Here's hoping there will be a post-book second wind. Just in time for the election.
I was deeply disappointed with John's response to the pronoun question. He says, "And I would hope that people who are having problems with these new developments would understand that just the X and Y chromosomes isn’t the argument. It’s almost a willful oversimplification of something that obviously is more interesting, and, frankly, just as real as that elementary distinction.” I can turn this right back around -- he is almost willfully oversimplifying extremely thoughtful arguments from women, lesbians, gays, parents, and detransitioners about why these "new developments" are dangerous and harmful. Boiling down gender critical discourse to "bUt ChRoMoSoMeS!!!" is extremely unfair dishonest.
Additionally, if someone is steeped in the discourse and still decides to use preferred pronouns for their reasons, I can respect that. I have a trans friend whom I call “she/her” even though this person is obviously a male. But to take that position out of ignorance, meanwhile talking with authority as though you are informed… THAT is what really disappoints me about John. It feels like willful ignorance from someone who is otherwise smart, well-read, and thoughtful, and his tone and language felt extremely dismissive of people with very valid concerns.
I understand that John is a linguist and he is trying to take a linguist approach to this issue. But it feels extremely incomplete to not even acknowledge why people are so concerned about pronouns and just say, "It's language. Language changes, and it's not in our control anyways." Would you discuss the N word without discussing the cultural context that surrounds its controversy? Why doesn't John give the same rigor to pronouns and gender issues that he gives to other issues?
Finally, it is clear to me how uninformed John is because he says, "Nobody can deny that there’s a biologically such thing as a man or biologically such thing as a woman." Veronica Ivy went on Trevor Noah and said, “I am a woman. It says so on my ID and birth certificate. And I’m biological, I’m made of cells and I’m alive. Am I not a biological woman?” How can he say “nobody is saying”? Many adults are claiming that biological sex is mutable, a spectrum, or nonexistent, which is all false. And this is extremely harmful to children, some of whom come to believe that sex isn't real, which has all sorts of implications for their sexual and reproductive development if they choose to interrupt it with hormones, whose consequences they cannot comprehend.
Sex denialism is rampant. Back in 2023, a whistleblower in Florida exposed that a lab in Florida was doing away with sex-based ranges to interpret test results. I saved the article because I knew Google would eventually bury it. What was reported in the Florida Standard is chilling:
"laboratory staff was recently informed by the chemistry supervisor that they are to work
with one range only – a combined one that is supposed to apply to both male and female patients. “He said that it was in the name of being ‘inclusive,’ so we don’t differentiate between genders – so we don’t discriminate against trans patients and so on,”the employee tells The Florida Standard. Laboratory workers were told that “inclusive ranges are the wave of the future” – which is also stated in the meeting agenda."
jfc
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.
One comment to the point of “what would Trump do that would be so bad?” — since everyone here is a big fan of the meritocracy I invite you all to be as upset as I am at Trump/Trump surrogates wanting to reform the government bureaucracy. The current practice of government employees being hired for their ability to actually do the job and basically be immune from the political cycle would end. Instead all federal employees would be political hires, that can be hired and fired based on how well they tow the party line. First world countries have competent bureaucracies, third (and second world, assuming that’s still what we call communist countries) world countries don’t. I know the bureaucracy is characterized as the “unelected bureaucrats” and “the deep state”. It is also known as the competent, experienced technical experts that when allowed to, make the government work. Bear in mind all the people you think of at “the bureacracy” (like Fauci) are actually high ranking political appointees.
Well, clearly any big organization has all kinds. “Whether there should be an ideological litmus test” is exactly the problem. I don’t know what agency you are in… but clearly if the whole agency changes over every time a new president is elected it would be a disaster. Continuing resolutions because congress can’t get its job done is bad enough. No one is talking about making the government work better. Trump just wants less push back on bad ideas.
I worked for an agency that was over 95% outsourced. If they went through and fired all the federal employees who didn’t support Trump, let’s say half… how could that possibly help anything?
So, to be clear, the Trump plan would be to make the entire federal government be schedule c. I don’t know what your agency is like, but mine had a very few spines among ranks of the schedule c. In the regular bureaucracy, it was mostly engineers, scientists, and a few lawyers - so no shortage of opinions… I realize all the agencies are different in how many feds there are (relative to contractors) and how many of them are political appointees.
I’m curious about your experience. Are these informal litmus tests being conducted by supervisors (who may be political appointees) or just the usual self-important fiefdom building? (Apologies if you don’t know what I mean, in my experience some people’s only meaning in work was to try to build their bureaucratic power to maintain relevance as there were reorgs, priority changes etc).
My understanding of the plan would that it would follow the model DoD developed at the end of the first Trump administration, where people’s social media was scrubbed and people were asked for loyalty oaths to the president not the constitution. It sounds just soooo dystopian. Or Soviet or CCP or something, definitely not American — where idiots can rant on the internet to vent without it costing them their livelihoods.