Listen now (64 min) | John McWhorter and I often find ourselves aligned on the issues we discuss on The Glenn Show. We’ve even received criticism for how much we agree with each other! This episode should please those critics, as John and I actually find ourselves in stark (though productive and friendly) disagreement on a few matters. Let’s get into it.
On McWhorter reference to (NY Times?) psychologists claiming “US English writing/speech reflects rejection of Neoliberalism”? Sounds like a very bold claim. I would want to see the evidence
(apologies for reposting, mistakenly made this comment on the post about elections)
I felt that the recap of the Amy Wax controversy left out a lot of the nuance and context in the original discussion. She made several qualifications. I saw the discussion about Asian immigration in the context of possible theoretical implications of cultural sensitive immigration standards, with Asians as an example, more than absolute statements on Asian immigrants.
The thing that I always think about whenever the taboo of discussing cultural characteristics comes up is the carte blanche given to critiquing white culture, and how much white people are expected to swallow. I accept why people feel the need, but the permissiveness is getting to the point where demonization creeps in. I don't think it's a coincidence that anti-white hate crimes spiked and became the second most common bias motivation in 2016 and 2020 (not that you'd know from mainstream news). And the borderline demonization is what's fueling the anti-CRT backlash. And it's very interesting to see white people adopting civil rights jargon and media critiques, and also the identitarianism.
I'm not the only one to remember that the earlier anti-racist rhetoric was around prejudice, and there were discussions over the dangers of blanket statements, while there was an admittance that generalities can be needed for honest discussions.
Now the status quo is generalization of non-whites is automatically racist, but any generalization of whites is permissible. I have to think if John's standard for who can teach introductory courses were evenly applied, all white people would be exempt from courses with any professor that teaches black studies, given the number of generalizations about white people that come with that subject matter.
Rarely do I have the pleasure of getting to disagree with both John and Glenn from one episode. To John- I don't think requiring ID to vote, when one has to produce ID for so many other civic engagements is anywhere near "repulsive" (if I'm misquoting, I'll humbly stand corrected). From my perspective, I don't see how one can bemoan the practices of removing academic standards testing for entry for black students into whatever elite high school or university has them, decrying it as racism or at the very least the "soft bigotry of low expectations" and not see the parallel between simply getting ID. John is often saying "where? how? show me the line that connects everything". Well, the same applies here, John. If requiring ID is somehow suppressing black votes, show me the through line? You decry the fact that people openly state that they pretty much think black people can't meet the demands of an academically rigorous evaluation, but you're completely ok with saying essentially 'black people can't be expected to get ID'? That's flimsy, at best. However, if there is a line that connects all the dots, then it should be illustrated.
To Glenn- I think Amy's comments on south Asian women were borderline abhorrent and supremely unscientific. She's had probably a couple negative run-ins with people that fit this demographic, but to make the claim that as a whole they can't be trusted not to try to tear down the culture and norms that belong for reasons of unity and social cohesion and longevity, is nothing more than conjecture, and it does lean toward racism, but I've read Amy and don't believe her to be racist. She's been attacked unfairly in the past and that might be part of the reason why she's emboldened to make such claims, but I couldn't disagree more emphatically. If for no other reason that she's a single data point, and it's her opinion and there's no intellectual rigor behind her claim, I think she should be called out on it- and I did in the thread for that episode.
However, regarding provocateurs and provocation, I would think that one has to allow that there has been a general bolstering of censorious behavior as of late, and especially in the last two years. What once wasn't provocative at all, now is. You can ruminate on how you'll be looked at all day long, and perhaps that's productive, but I beg you to keep in mind that simply stating fact- NOT quasi-racist conjecture, I repeat, NOT unscientific, quasi-racist conjecture about a particular demographic as Amy did, should be encouraged by your platform. If it is true, then it should be allowed to be said, even if it is provocative and EVEN IF THE PERSON IS A PROVOCATEUR. There is a line, as John suggested between provocative and someone seeking to be a provocateur, but as long as they're stating truthful claims that are bereft of opinion or otherwise intellectually inaccurate or dishonest assertions, it should be allowed, and even encouraged. I think that a man as thoughtful and wise and intelligent as you are, having been immersed in this topic for at least 4 decades, can discern the difference. Charles Murray is a good example. His writing is provocative, and he knows it and he stands beside what he writes, which almost inherently brands him as a provocateur, but I think even he would take issue with what Amy said about south Asian women.
I believe that anyone that says anything like _______________ race or demographic as a whole exhibit ____________ trait or behavior therefore ___________________; should be immediately dismissed. You know, like "black people can't be expected to be precise" or "all whites are inherently racist because...". You get my point.
On Amy Wax- so many living in glass houses. The Muslim guy who took hostages in Texas. Someone should lecture him about characterizing Jews, In Sha’Allah. Directors of Scholarly institutions that allow Equity to racially characterize diverse groups, someone (aside from me) should lecture them.
On voting- how about Glenn and John interviewing independent voters on their concerns to avoid the partisan bias. As a computer guy (IT), I want every voter to have ID. And in 2020, I didn’t like officials in CA mysteriously avoiding the question “Is voting Covid-safe?”, then Newscomb turns everyone into “mail-in” statewide on Oct 1, 2020.
Regarding Amy Wax: While I disagree with her views on Asian immigration and the analysis she uses to justify them, it is based on her cultural observations rather than racial considerations. As a result, calling her racist or wondering whether she is one is off the mark. as race is irrelevant to her point.
Separate but related, if one assesses that someone’s stated views are sincerely held — as opposed to them being expressed so as to attract attention and/or provoke a reaction — I think it is perfectly appropriate to give that person a platform to state their case and try to defend it under interrogation.
I thought more blacks voted during 2020 election and more voted Republican than had before. So why would Republicans do such disgusting things? I had no idea people could vote without proving who they are with an ID. I thought every one followed the same rules.. voter fraud is rampant and there is absolutely an extreme amount of evidence of the same. One has to know where to find the information and it’s not in the main stream media. It will be once they lose again.
Technical comment - the volume on this episode was really low, I had to crank my headphones almost all the way up to hear it 😓 more gain on the mix next time please!
Let me tell you why IDs are a bad idea. A 30-year-old woman goes into a liquor store. The creep behind the counter asks for her ID not because he thinks she is too young, but because he wants her name and address. He plans to stalk her. The ID requirement endangers women!
Besides, if anyone comes into the store who is known to be underage, they will not be served. So IDs are unnecessary.
Last point: I am saying this out of a concern for women, not as a liquor store owner who wants to sell whiskey to high school kids. You do believe me, right?
You’ll notice how often John used the term “disgusting” when describing Republican political tactics about voting laws. But what if you substitute the synonym “deplorable”? It illustrates why the Dems lost in 2016: an overwhelming, visceral, quasi-religious contempt on the left for your political opponents. This is NOT the way to win over your opponents! I’m on Glenn’s side on this, but I think the video was unfairly edited: I’d like to hear how John responds to Glenn’s very lengthy explication about this subject. I used to discuss politics with my brother. Recently, we had almost the identical conversation about voting rights. (In the last 40 years neither of us has voted for a Republican, but I’ll likely break that tradition this year.) He couldn’t BELIEVE I was defending those DISGUSTING Republicans, and that my contention that the Dem’s position was hyperbolic and non-empirical. But, unlike, Glenn and John, he won’t talk about politics with me any more for now. My positions are now beyond the pale.
About the voter ID stuff, John should realize that voter ID laws are broadly popular, including with non-whites - see https://news.gallup.com/poll/194741/four-five-americans-support-voter-laws-early-voting.aspx (5 years old, but it always polls this way). I remember thinking, from the first time I voted (NJ) and they confirmed my ID with a signature match, that it was a strange system and it would be easy to fake being someone else. This kind of voter fraud happens every election, but it's always small potatoes.
Another point worth mentioning: The Supreme Court upheld voter ID laws broadly in 2008 (https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna24351798) in an Indiana case. The law's opponents literally could not find a single person who was unable to vote because of the requirement.
Word. Powerful insight from John Stuart Mill about importance of interrogating what is wrong in order to bolster one's argument for what is right, echoed by other public figures of the present like Jordan Peterson.
As one who has been critical of the lack of disagreement (or put another way, the lack of a diversity of views) between Glenn and John during their frequent discussions on The Glenn Show, I found this discussion refreshing and enervating.
While I admit my bias (I am a huge Glenn fan and a frequent critic of John's) it seems painfully clear that Glenn has given deep and prolonged thought to the issues discussed here and has well formulated views that he argues forcefully, on the other hand John's views come across as little else than Progressive talking points and coastal elite cocktail party talk.
I guess a ray of hope can be found in John's change of heart on Eric Adams and his admission that Glenn was right and he was wrong in their discussion of a few months ago about Adams.
It is really surprising to me that John has the confidence of his view, without ANY substantive evidence, that Republicans are 'DISGUSTING" for favoring the laws now getting pushed in the states. I favor these laws. I have fought for civil rights in the day when it was fought for. I believe, and I think many Republicans actually agree, that it is necessary to get more blacks in the party. Many of them are working now for that. John's assumption that there is no real need for any tightening of election security also flies in the face of the Democratic movement to loosen such security. One does NOT have to buy into Trump's disgraceful post-Nov. 3 behavior to recognize the many ways the pandemic-justified policies did in fact loosen the administration of the election in many places in 2020. John seems utterly indifferent to if not ignorant of these policies. One does not have to believe the election was stolen, and I do not. But I saw plainly and upfront how much loosening did occur. I am absolutely in favor of states asserting the need for security at elections, and I see no evidence at all that the way they are doing it impacts minorities one iota more than any other group. (Which ironically John himself notes by saying the laws won't and don't suppress the Black vote -- he is not alone in seeing this. Republicans do also.) Unless, with this one exception, you want to talk about long lines at polling places in some counties. In which case, John should contend with the fact that those long lines are mainly in counties under total control of Democrats (Atlanta, for instance), who are responsible for where polling places are established. It is NOT because of the Republicans.
Glenn and John, I haven’t before today seen such an awkward conversation between you two. My intuition is that John’s move to the NTTimes has led to his more protective, perspective
John can’t be both serious and intellectually honest about conservative motivation for voting integrity
On McWhorter reference to (NY Times?) psychologists claiming “US English writing/speech reflects rejection of Neoliberalism”? Sounds like a very bold claim. I would want to see the evidence
(apologies for reposting, mistakenly made this comment on the post about elections)
I felt that the recap of the Amy Wax controversy left out a lot of the nuance and context in the original discussion. She made several qualifications. I saw the discussion about Asian immigration in the context of possible theoretical implications of cultural sensitive immigration standards, with Asians as an example, more than absolute statements on Asian immigrants.
The thing that I always think about whenever the taboo of discussing cultural characteristics comes up is the carte blanche given to critiquing white culture, and how much white people are expected to swallow. I accept why people feel the need, but the permissiveness is getting to the point where demonization creeps in. I don't think it's a coincidence that anti-white hate crimes spiked and became the second most common bias motivation in 2016 and 2020 (not that you'd know from mainstream news). And the borderline demonization is what's fueling the anti-CRT backlash. And it's very interesting to see white people adopting civil rights jargon and media critiques, and also the identitarianism.
I'm not the only one to remember that the earlier anti-racist rhetoric was around prejudice, and there were discussions over the dangers of blanket statements, while there was an admittance that generalities can be needed for honest discussions.
Now the status quo is generalization of non-whites is automatically racist, but any generalization of whites is permissible. I have to think if John's standard for who can teach introductory courses were evenly applied, all white people would be exempt from courses with any professor that teaches black studies, given the number of generalizations about white people that come with that subject matter.
Rarely do I have the pleasure of getting to disagree with both John and Glenn from one episode. To John- I don't think requiring ID to vote, when one has to produce ID for so many other civic engagements is anywhere near "repulsive" (if I'm misquoting, I'll humbly stand corrected). From my perspective, I don't see how one can bemoan the practices of removing academic standards testing for entry for black students into whatever elite high school or university has them, decrying it as racism or at the very least the "soft bigotry of low expectations" and not see the parallel between simply getting ID. John is often saying "where? how? show me the line that connects everything". Well, the same applies here, John. If requiring ID is somehow suppressing black votes, show me the through line? You decry the fact that people openly state that they pretty much think black people can't meet the demands of an academically rigorous evaluation, but you're completely ok with saying essentially 'black people can't be expected to get ID'? That's flimsy, at best. However, if there is a line that connects all the dots, then it should be illustrated.
To Glenn- I think Amy's comments on south Asian women were borderline abhorrent and supremely unscientific. She's had probably a couple negative run-ins with people that fit this demographic, but to make the claim that as a whole they can't be trusted not to try to tear down the culture and norms that belong for reasons of unity and social cohesion and longevity, is nothing more than conjecture, and it does lean toward racism, but I've read Amy and don't believe her to be racist. She's been attacked unfairly in the past and that might be part of the reason why she's emboldened to make such claims, but I couldn't disagree more emphatically. If for no other reason that she's a single data point, and it's her opinion and there's no intellectual rigor behind her claim, I think she should be called out on it- and I did in the thread for that episode.
However, regarding provocateurs and provocation, I would think that one has to allow that there has been a general bolstering of censorious behavior as of late, and especially in the last two years. What once wasn't provocative at all, now is. You can ruminate on how you'll be looked at all day long, and perhaps that's productive, but I beg you to keep in mind that simply stating fact- NOT quasi-racist conjecture, I repeat, NOT unscientific, quasi-racist conjecture about a particular demographic as Amy did, should be encouraged by your platform. If it is true, then it should be allowed to be said, even if it is provocative and EVEN IF THE PERSON IS A PROVOCATEUR. There is a line, as John suggested between provocative and someone seeking to be a provocateur, but as long as they're stating truthful claims that are bereft of opinion or otherwise intellectually inaccurate or dishonest assertions, it should be allowed, and even encouraged. I think that a man as thoughtful and wise and intelligent as you are, having been immersed in this topic for at least 4 decades, can discern the difference. Charles Murray is a good example. His writing is provocative, and he knows it and he stands beside what he writes, which almost inherently brands him as a provocateur, but I think even he would take issue with what Amy said about south Asian women.
I believe that anyone that says anything like _______________ race or demographic as a whole exhibit ____________ trait or behavior therefore ___________________; should be immediately dismissed. You know, like "black people can't be expected to be precise" or "all whites are inherently racist because...". You get my point.
On Amy Wax- so many living in glass houses. The Muslim guy who took hostages in Texas. Someone should lecture him about characterizing Jews, In Sha’Allah. Directors of Scholarly institutions that allow Equity to racially characterize diverse groups, someone (aside from me) should lecture them.
On voting- how about Glenn and John interviewing independent voters on their concerns to avoid the partisan bias. As a computer guy (IT), I want every voter to have ID. And in 2020, I didn’t like officials in CA mysteriously avoiding the question “Is voting Covid-safe?”, then Newscomb turns everyone into “mail-in” statewide on Oct 1, 2020.
Regarding Amy Wax: While I disagree with her views on Asian immigration and the analysis she uses to justify them, it is based on her cultural observations rather than racial considerations. As a result, calling her racist or wondering whether she is one is off the mark. as race is irrelevant to her point.
Separate but related, if one assesses that someone’s stated views are sincerely held — as opposed to them being expressed so as to attract attention and/or provoke a reaction — I think it is perfectly appropriate to give that person a platform to state their case and try to defend it under interrogation.
I thought more blacks voted during 2020 election and more voted Republican than had before. So why would Republicans do such disgusting things? I had no idea people could vote without proving who they are with an ID. I thought every one followed the same rules.. voter fraud is rampant and there is absolutely an extreme amount of evidence of the same. One has to know where to find the information and it’s not in the main stream media. It will be once they lose again.
Technical comment - the volume on this episode was really low, I had to crank my headphones almost all the way up to hear it 😓 more gain on the mix next time please!
Let me tell you why IDs are a bad idea. A 30-year-old woman goes into a liquor store. The creep behind the counter asks for her ID not because he thinks she is too young, but because he wants her name and address. He plans to stalk her. The ID requirement endangers women!
Besides, if anyone comes into the store who is known to be underage, they will not be served. So IDs are unnecessary.
Last point: I am saying this out of a concern for women, not as a liquor store owner who wants to sell whiskey to high school kids. You do believe me, right?
You’ll notice how often John used the term “disgusting” when describing Republican political tactics about voting laws. But what if you substitute the synonym “deplorable”? It illustrates why the Dems lost in 2016: an overwhelming, visceral, quasi-religious contempt on the left for your political opponents. This is NOT the way to win over your opponents! I’m on Glenn’s side on this, but I think the video was unfairly edited: I’d like to hear how John responds to Glenn’s very lengthy explication about this subject. I used to discuss politics with my brother. Recently, we had almost the identical conversation about voting rights. (In the last 40 years neither of us has voted for a Republican, but I’ll likely break that tradition this year.) He couldn’t BELIEVE I was defending those DISGUSTING Republicans, and that my contention that the Dem’s position was hyperbolic and non-empirical. But, unlike, Glenn and John, he won’t talk about politics with me any more for now. My positions are now beyond the pale.
About the voter ID stuff, John should realize that voter ID laws are broadly popular, including with non-whites - see https://news.gallup.com/poll/194741/four-five-americans-support-voter-laws-early-voting.aspx (5 years old, but it always polls this way). I remember thinking, from the first time I voted (NJ) and they confirmed my ID with a signature match, that it was a strange system and it would be easy to fake being someone else. This kind of voter fraud happens every election, but it's always small potatoes.
Another point worth mentioning: The Supreme Court upheld voter ID laws broadly in 2008 (https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna24351798) in an Indiana case. The law's opponents literally could not find a single person who was unable to vote because of the requirement.
Word. Powerful insight from John Stuart Mill about importance of interrogating what is wrong in order to bolster one's argument for what is right, echoed by other public figures of the present like Jordan Peterson.
24:09 The Congressional election in my district had to be redone a couple of years ago because Republicans violated North Carolina law about ballot harvesting. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/north-carolina-special-election-mccready-bishop-n1052021
As one who has been critical of the lack of disagreement (or put another way, the lack of a diversity of views) between Glenn and John during their frequent discussions on The Glenn Show, I found this discussion refreshing and enervating.
While I admit my bias (I am a huge Glenn fan and a frequent critic of John's) it seems painfully clear that Glenn has given deep and prolonged thought to the issues discussed here and has well formulated views that he argues forcefully, on the other hand John's views come across as little else than Progressive talking points and coastal elite cocktail party talk.
I guess a ray of hope can be found in John's change of heart on Eric Adams and his admission that Glenn was right and he was wrong in their discussion of a few months ago about Adams.
It is really surprising to me that John has the confidence of his view, without ANY substantive evidence, that Republicans are 'DISGUSTING" for favoring the laws now getting pushed in the states. I favor these laws. I have fought for civil rights in the day when it was fought for. I believe, and I think many Republicans actually agree, that it is necessary to get more blacks in the party. Many of them are working now for that. John's assumption that there is no real need for any tightening of election security also flies in the face of the Democratic movement to loosen such security. One does NOT have to buy into Trump's disgraceful post-Nov. 3 behavior to recognize the many ways the pandemic-justified policies did in fact loosen the administration of the election in many places in 2020. John seems utterly indifferent to if not ignorant of these policies. One does not have to believe the election was stolen, and I do not. But I saw plainly and upfront how much loosening did occur. I am absolutely in favor of states asserting the need for security at elections, and I see no evidence at all that the way they are doing it impacts minorities one iota more than any other group. (Which ironically John himself notes by saying the laws won't and don't suppress the Black vote -- he is not alone in seeing this. Republicans do also.) Unless, with this one exception, you want to talk about long lines at polling places in some counties. In which case, John should contend with the fact that those long lines are mainly in counties under total control of Democrats (Atlanta, for instance), who are responsible for where polling places are established. It is NOT because of the Republicans.
Glenn and John, I haven’t before today seen such an awkward conversation between you two. My intuition is that John’s move to the NTTimes has led to his more protective, perspective
P