I find it relevant to the merit based and elite college conversation.
Again, I would LOVE for you two to invite Malcolm Gladwell on to discuss education. I think he has interesting things to say, and a refreshing perspective coming from Canada.
Glenn and John, please consider the following two suggestions for topics and two suggestions for guests.
1. Is TDS a thing? I'd like John to defend himself against the frequent TDS charges that have been made against him in the comments. My theory is that TDS is in reality a subconscious defense mechanism against liars. I hope John can provide a psycholinguistic explanation for this (his?) phenomenon, and perhaps an explanation as to why it is not triggered in everyone, as well as a description of the psychological damage that may be inflicted on those who are not protected.
2. Is capitalism dead? Let's get beyond the daily news and turf wars and talk about the elephant in the room. By capitalism, I don't mean democracy, or the air we breathe. I am referring to an economic system "based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit". Authors such as Tim Wu, Shoshana Zuboff, Mairana Mazzucato, Yanis Varoufakis, and others, have coined terms such as technofeudalism and "algorithmic attention rents" to describe the emerging economic system where the means of production is owned by a few, and does not operate for profit but rather for control. Help us evaluate these assertions. Bonus points if one of the authors listed can make a guest appearance!
3. Chris Hedges: Discuss "what is going on" and what should be done about it with Chris Hedges. As an ordained minister and a former NYT and Christian Science Monitor reporter, I think Chris would be an interesting guest for both Glenn and John. His views seem to be outside the usual liberal-conservative framework, and I would like to hear them discussed with Glenn and John.
4. Michael Podhorzer: Ask Michael Podhorzer to explain what the polls really mean - and the limits of their utility. I think this would be educational and insightful for many of your subscribers.
Thank you to the bone for popping out an A to my contentious Q in your Feb Question and
Answer session for substack subscribers. To begin, I appeal to gentlemanliness and the
collegial spirit and ask you to either answer this new letter now as an addendum to Feb, or as part of the March Q and A, since Glenn constructed a straw man at the end of the clip by stating right out, and twice in the video for emphasis, that I took rhetorical possession of English/Irish or White American achievements BECAUSE these are my forefathers, disincluding Glenn Loury from this supposed circle. I said no such thing, nor did I imply it. That element of your answer was purely performative, and potentially damaging to me. I should get a response since you asked me a direct question at the end.
You said correctly that the man of straw you made of my question was “paper thin.” On two fronts. The bird would find the scarecrow
very thin indeed, were he ever able to overcome his fear and take a peck. And also, to some extent the argument itself IS paper thin. That’s why I’m asking you to give me your honest thoughts. I am in good faith. I mean no harm in a racist sense, and I’d like to further flesh out this framework.
And you said correctly, Glenn, that this construction of yours was “intellectually bankrupt” — In response, I
say that by this accusation you buttress my core Claims of the Outsider that I make, I.e., the writer of both the style and the substance of my question could only be laboriously repainted within the now-rigid framework of the academy as “bankrupt” — (When I think of someone who is bankrupt, I think of the song, John, “Nobody Knows You When You’re Down and Out,” recorded by Scrapper Blackwell. I am a musician, and I have been playing and singing both his version, and Clapton’s version, for years now.) By saying, Glenn, my question was “intellectually bankrupt,” and clipping that section of your response for a YouTube Smackdown, instead of, say, clipping the sections where you are “flabbergasted” after first attempting to answer me, but pausing when you realized you could not do so without resorting to the boiler plate responses to racial issues that you have spent a great deal of your own intellectual capital, of late, repudiating and minimizing.
This was my intuition after having listened to you two for over two years, now: As
“inheritors and minor interlocutors in the Great Western Conversation,” you must stand on truth as the first principle, very much in disregard of the pain and discomfiture such a facial attitude might and will bring to your souls and reputations. For what is academic freedom if we are only free to construct creative lies? At the same time, you are songbirds, perched and caged on the
out-facing white tower wall of of 2025’s Academic and Media complexes, and though you wrangle and peck at the bars, and occasionally squawk at Overton’s borderline, you know that if you choose to fly-fly-fly out the back cage-door which stands open for you by dint of your positions on the perch, it will clang shut behind you with ne’er a fare-thee-well from the cock-sure hearts and handedness of your wardens. Such a fine pickle.
But this is why I love and support you both. I have been caged, in truth. I know why you
sing.
So I will get to my second question-set:
Glenn, you will appreciate something about me. I spent my younger years of outsider
research in the hood- stuck to the wall, having loaned out my car, both metaphorically, literally, and substantively. You might explain that jargon, and what it might imply about me, if it twinges your nostalgia-bone to do so. I was not so privileged to have had a tenured position when I was a teen pseudo-intellectual, pump-fitting chapters of Sartre into my hedonism, so I got burned. I could never maintain. (But that paragraph was an aside, context only (for coherency.))
Q1: The times they are a-changin’, no? Can race relations maybe do with some more honest white input after a program of less obfuscation and contrived social engineering from the increasingly mediocritized elite?
Q2: What do you think of the term “re-enchantment”? I don’t like it. Enchanters have never left the world, they have merely been on their outer arc. Their technologies have been preserved. Materialism, the categorical, progressive, oppressive “fact-based” denial of the mythical and fantastic elements of humanity (and perhaps beyond) has gotten us to where Nietzsche and Dostoevsky told us it would get us to. We don’t need yet more abstract type thinkers to explain our experiences of the divine and
the spiritual to us, or do we?
Q4: To continue from February, isn’t it time to ask white men in academia to be honest instead of requiring them to engage in “double speak” as John stated, “out of fear of being called a racist” in your first answer to me? Why not look into their eyes and say, “I trust you, I’ll fight for you, let’s do this together”?
1. Do you think that is a reasonable definition of wokeness? Would you define it differently?
2. Do you think the underlying premise (that the world can be changed by changing language) is correct?
3. To what extent do critics of wokeness alike accept the premise as true? I'm seeing a lot of recent efforts by the government to scrub things that shouldn't be viewed as woke at all. For example, requirements that drug trials recruit represenative populations to account for biological differences across race and especially sex; removing content about Black and female veterans from the Arligton National Cemetery website. The former is a biological necessity because most drugs we develop in this country are intended to work in men and women, black and white and other races. The latter is just deeming certain things in the historical American expierience to be woke and thus beneath mention. I cannot help but think that many of those who oppose the woke movement do very much want to "change the world by changing the way we talk about the world" they just want to change it in a different way.
Glenn and John, how do you view the response from private universities, especially examples like Columbia, to the Trump administration's withdrawal of federal funding? Do you find it ironic that the students largely responsible for the violent aspects of the campus protests, including the spread of antisemitic discrimination, in response to the middle east conflict are in the arts and humanities? (and possibly some from social science departments). This is a generalization of the makeup of the protestors, but is reasonable enough to consider given that the majority of federal funding goes to universities hard science, engineering, and health departments? Would a Pigouvian tax play an ameliorative role to help students consider the consequences of their actions, specifically those whose actions that make the leap from reasonable civil protest to violent discrimination?
Luke, thank you for the thoughtful reply. I am more than content with opinions expressed as reasonably as you have. We agree to disagree on the liability of John’s statement. I reckon I could easily convict John in most US jurisdictions of violent speech, and especially violent speech about killing a POTUS. However, let us leave that disagreement aside. We agree otherswise. Thank you Luke.
The DEI folks did not develop the intellectual muscle needed to defend themselves from the Trumpian onslaught--they simply branded all dissenters as "racist" and demanded that they shut up. Now, they don't know what to say now that the "racist" charge no longer carries the same stigma.
It's interesting how the DEI Industry seems to be going down without a fight. I have some sense why that is the case. Why do people think that's the case?
Because it is run by mediocre race baiters. It’s a testament to how much good will and desire for all people to get along and have a chance to succeed there is in the USA that we have allowed such a blatantly racist program to keep its claws in use for so long.
Wondering if you might share your thoughts on the contents of the article as well as your views on Henry Charles Carey's theories. I am intrigued by the social dynamics of his writing as described in the article.
Thanks for all your content and insights on the many sides of many topics. You be you. That's all that matters. BTW "Late Admissions" is next in my non-fiction library.
Given some of the contentious questions recently I have a linguistic softie that is puzzling me. Great minds such as Victor Davis Hanson, Jordan Peterson and - yes - Dr. Loury, have used the term "coronate", as in "Kamala Harris was coronated". This suggests there's some kind of erroneous mental path from coronation to "coronate", rather than from crowned to coronation. One of the communications (!) professionals at my work actually uttered the phrase "the report will be "publicated". Yikes! How can such an eminent brain trust of native english speakers go so wrong?! Love the show as always and best to you both. JW
Glenn; How I stumbled onto you and your cadre of sidekicks, I do not recall. However, it has been a blessing. I am delighted to support your efforts. Count on it continuing. Your banter is sharp, ( steel on steel,,,,,lots of sparks.....wheeee) but honest and appears to come from a good heart. If it's ever appropriate, I requesst that you paint a picture of your impressions of the dream you have in mind should all of your efforts come to fruition and the world was delightful, free of all the anger and sinister crap we have to deal with. 75 years on the planet, and I'm so tired of the black-white- Jewish-Nazi-bigot-racism- political mush. Geeeez...will we ever make it to peace and brotherly love? From your point of view....are there any indicators , targets or sign postss of good things ahead? I want to focus on those things. What are you striving for....specifically? I want to get there, asap. I read most of the posts popping up on your sites. You attract brilliant minds.....oh, so articulate. However, the pattern I see is a tribe of very intelligent people spending significant effort to dissect turds in search of the stinky bits that they can argue against. Oh, if only a small portion of their efforts could could be focused on formlate positive action plans to heal the errors they enjoy pointing out with academic poetry. The stink they uncover lingers and causes even more angst. Thanks for allowing me a bit of venting time.
With respect to Israel/Gaza, you've roundly condemned some Israeli actions. When asked to compare actions to US actions in WW-II, you've expressed condemnation of some US actions as well. Thinking about the US strategic bombing of Japan from 1944 - 1945, you've expressed the opinions that "it might have been a military necessity" and "those people (we?) have blood on our hands".
I wonder how you reconcile those statements. Imagine you're talking to a 20 year old in 1944, who's thinking about volunteering for the USAAF and wants to be a B-29 pilot. Do you encourage him or discourage him? Telling him he'll "have blood on his hands" seems pretty discouraging.
OTOH, not bombing (by assumption) leads to bad outcomes, at least for the US, and plausibly for Japan as well.
Can a person or country justify "blood on their hands"?
Are there scenarios where all outcomes have "blood on your hands"?
I'm also thinking about the trolley car problem. If I throw the switch, do I have blood on my hands? More than if I do nothing?
I think this is a really interesting question. The obvious answer would be that, if anyone has blood on his hands over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's Truman. For what it's worth, the pilot of the Enola Gay didn't regret his role in the bombing, which is not the same as disavowing responsibility.
But in a war, it seems like the phrase "blood on your hands" is misleading, since it attributes moral culpability to the individual. Anyone who pulls a trigger, even in a war, has some kind of moral culpability if the bullet kills someone—he could have refused the assignment and accepted the penalty. But even if he does pull the trigger, he's following explicit or implicit orders, which implicates the chain of command all the way up to the president. (I'm excluding unsanctioned atrocities like My Lai.)
And the slug that exits the barrel of the gun had a long journey. Are owners of munitions factories implicated? What about workers at munitions factories? What about the miners who dug up the ore used to make the bullets?
I'm not saying "WE ALL HAVE BLOOD ON OUR HANDS"—that's too simplistic. Just thinking about a morally ambiguous situation in which agency is constrained and shared. I recently reread Tim O'Brien's "How to Tell a True War Story," which is partially about the problem of trying to understand and communicate about war, where conventional moral categories break down:
"A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things they have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it."
I guess the question is "Which is the lesser evil, to pull the trigger, or not pull the trigger and accept the consequences?" Which is a restatement of the trolley car problem. And I've decided that -- in some cases -- the lesser evil is to pull the trigger.
John, with the approval of the vast majority of voters, your university is being defunded, and the dangerous foreign students like Mahmoud Khalio deported and his ilk given notice. You are obviously entitled to your opinions, nowever, your opinions once came arguably close to a call for violence. Glenn, bravely stood by you and I reluctantly gave him credit for loyalty. I now withdraw that credit. John maybe you should 'empathise' not 'sympathise' with the majority zietfeist. Question: John when will the penny drop wity you?
What do you mean by 'disappear'? Come on Luke step-up, are you suggesting that ICE kills people. Exactly what are you implying, please don't prevaricate. ICE is a government agency and must stay within the constitution and thus the law. I don't relish seeing John Mcwhorter prosecuted but I do want John to at least have empathy, not sympathy, with DJT and the MAGA Movement. I try to have empathy, not sympathy, for John's opinions.
Luke, I'm sorely tempted to treat you like an ignoramus, but I'll make this effort.
(a). "Forget the 'disappear' bit", WHY? You raised 'disappear' now explain.
(b). Khalil's visa is to study, and can be cancelled for any or no reason.
(c). John admits he crossed the line and then pulled back. He was in fact calling for the violent removal of DJT. Even then John waw not contrite.
(d). The American people are overwhelmingly supportive of DJT and the MAGA Movement. John as an ACADEMIC should empathise (understand), he need not sympathise (agree with) DJT and MAGA.
(e). I empathise with John, I don't sympathise with him. John away from his jaundiced opinions of DJT and MAGA is probably a decent and good man.
But I'm honestly not here to debate. Just looking for some clarification: Your comment seemed like a thinly veiled threat. "Watch your rhetoric John or ICE might getcha." Maybe this wasn't your intent though. Maybe the comments on Khalil's deportation and the "penny dropping" for John were unrelated.
I remember you. We are here to debate. My point is that free speech is subject to two obvious exceptioins (1) Speech that encourages violence, perceived or otherwise. (b) Speech that breaches the law i.e. child pornography. The US Federal Law is even more explicite. Glenn does NOT agree with me and many others besides. Nevertheless, there are millions of Americans who do AGREE with me. John is a Columbia university academic he had no business voicing sympathy for others who might wish to engage in violence against a POTUS. John wisely walked it back, but he arrogantly continued to shoot his mouth off. The DoJ might take an interest.
I came across this clip.
https://youtube.com/shorts/iY5gWHpsLzQ?si=f71S8-AA5CRfCslZ
I find it relevant to the merit based and elite college conversation.
Again, I would LOVE for you two to invite Malcolm Gladwell on to discuss education. I think he has interesting things to say, and a refreshing perspective coming from Canada.
Glenn and John, please consider the following two suggestions for topics and two suggestions for guests.
1. Is TDS a thing? I'd like John to defend himself against the frequent TDS charges that have been made against him in the comments. My theory is that TDS is in reality a subconscious defense mechanism against liars. I hope John can provide a psycholinguistic explanation for this (his?) phenomenon, and perhaps an explanation as to why it is not triggered in everyone, as well as a description of the psychological damage that may be inflicted on those who are not protected.
2. Is capitalism dead? Let's get beyond the daily news and turf wars and talk about the elephant in the room. By capitalism, I don't mean democracy, or the air we breathe. I am referring to an economic system "based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit". Authors such as Tim Wu, Shoshana Zuboff, Mairana Mazzucato, Yanis Varoufakis, and others, have coined terms such as technofeudalism and "algorithmic attention rents" to describe the emerging economic system where the means of production is owned by a few, and does not operate for profit but rather for control. Help us evaluate these assertions. Bonus points if one of the authors listed can make a guest appearance!
3. Chris Hedges: Discuss "what is going on" and what should be done about it with Chris Hedges. As an ordained minister and a former NYT and Christian Science Monitor reporter, I think Chris would be an interesting guest for both Glenn and John. His views seem to be outside the usual liberal-conservative framework, and I would like to hear them discussed with Glenn and John.
4. Michael Podhorzer: Ask Michael Podhorzer to explain what the polls really mean - and the limits of their utility. I think this would be educational and insightful for many of your subscribers.
Dear John McW. and Glenn L.,
Thank you to the bone for popping out an A to my contentious Q in your Feb Question and
Answer session for substack subscribers. To begin, I appeal to gentlemanliness and the
collegial spirit and ask you to either answer this new letter now as an addendum to Feb, or as part of the March Q and A, since Glenn constructed a straw man at the end of the clip by stating right out, and twice in the video for emphasis, that I took rhetorical possession of English/Irish or White American achievements BECAUSE these are my forefathers, disincluding Glenn Loury from this supposed circle. I said no such thing, nor did I imply it. That element of your answer was purely performative, and potentially damaging to me. I should get a response since you asked me a direct question at the end.
You said correctly that the man of straw you made of my question was “paper thin.” On two fronts. The bird would find the scarecrow
very thin indeed, were he ever able to overcome his fear and take a peck. And also, to some extent the argument itself IS paper thin. That’s why I’m asking you to give me your honest thoughts. I am in good faith. I mean no harm in a racist sense, and I’d like to further flesh out this framework.
And you said correctly, Glenn, that this construction of yours was “intellectually bankrupt” — In response, I
say that by this accusation you buttress my core Claims of the Outsider that I make, I.e., the writer of both the style and the substance of my question could only be laboriously repainted within the now-rigid framework of the academy as “bankrupt” — (When I think of someone who is bankrupt, I think of the song, John, “Nobody Knows You When You’re Down and Out,” recorded by Scrapper Blackwell. I am a musician, and I have been playing and singing both his version, and Clapton’s version, for years now.) By saying, Glenn, my question was “intellectually bankrupt,” and clipping that section of your response for a YouTube Smackdown, instead of, say, clipping the sections where you are “flabbergasted” after first attempting to answer me, but pausing when you realized you could not do so without resorting to the boiler plate responses to racial issues that you have spent a great deal of your own intellectual capital, of late, repudiating and minimizing.
This was my intuition after having listened to you two for over two years, now: As
“inheritors and minor interlocutors in the Great Western Conversation,” you must stand on truth as the first principle, very much in disregard of the pain and discomfiture such a facial attitude might and will bring to your souls and reputations. For what is academic freedom if we are only free to construct creative lies? At the same time, you are songbirds, perched and caged on the
out-facing white tower wall of of 2025’s Academic and Media complexes, and though you wrangle and peck at the bars, and occasionally squawk at Overton’s borderline, you know that if you choose to fly-fly-fly out the back cage-door which stands open for you by dint of your positions on the perch, it will clang shut behind you with ne’er a fare-thee-well from the cock-sure hearts and handedness of your wardens. Such a fine pickle.
But this is why I love and support you both. I have been caged, in truth. I know why you
sing.
So I will get to my second question-set:
Glenn, you will appreciate something about me. I spent my younger years of outsider
research in the hood- stuck to the wall, having loaned out my car, both metaphorically, literally, and substantively. You might explain that jargon, and what it might imply about me, if it twinges your nostalgia-bone to do so. I was not so privileged to have had a tenured position when I was a teen pseudo-intellectual, pump-fitting chapters of Sartre into my hedonism, so I got burned. I could never maintain. (But that paragraph was an aside, context only (for coherency.))
Q1: The times they are a-changin’, no? Can race relations maybe do with some more honest white input after a program of less obfuscation and contrived social engineering from the increasingly mediocritized elite?
Q2: What do you think of the term “re-enchantment”? I don’t like it. Enchanters have never left the world, they have merely been on their outer arc. Their technologies have been preserved. Materialism, the categorical, progressive, oppressive “fact-based” denial of the mythical and fantastic elements of humanity (and perhaps beyond) has gotten us to where Nietzsche and Dostoevsky told us it would get us to. We don’t need yet more abstract type thinkers to explain our experiences of the divine and
the spiritual to us, or do we?
Q4: To continue from February, isn’t it time to ask white men in academia to be honest instead of requiring them to engage in “double speak” as John stated, “out of fear of being called a racist” in your first answer to me? Why not look into their eyes and say, “I trust you, I’ll fight for you, let’s do this together”?
John's NYT opinion colleague Michelle Goldberg recently offered the following definition of wokeness: "a style of social-justice politics that is extremely focused on changing the world by changing the way we talk about the world." (https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2025/03/the-end-of-wokeness/681904/)
1. Do you think that is a reasonable definition of wokeness? Would you define it differently?
2. Do you think the underlying premise (that the world can be changed by changing language) is correct?
3. To what extent do critics of wokeness alike accept the premise as true? I'm seeing a lot of recent efforts by the government to scrub things that shouldn't be viewed as woke at all. For example, requirements that drug trials recruit represenative populations to account for biological differences across race and especially sex; removing content about Black and female veterans from the Arligton National Cemetery website. The former is a biological necessity because most drugs we develop in this country are intended to work in men and women, black and white and other races. The latter is just deeming certain things in the historical American expierience to be woke and thus beneath mention. I cannot help but think that many of those who oppose the woke movement do very much want to "change the world by changing the way we talk about the world" they just want to change it in a different way.
Glenn and John, how do you view the response from private universities, especially examples like Columbia, to the Trump administration's withdrawal of federal funding? Do you find it ironic that the students largely responsible for the violent aspects of the campus protests, including the spread of antisemitic discrimination, in response to the middle east conflict are in the arts and humanities? (and possibly some from social science departments). This is a generalization of the makeup of the protestors, but is reasonable enough to consider given that the majority of federal funding goes to universities hard science, engineering, and health departments? Would a Pigouvian tax play an ameliorative role to help students consider the consequences of their actions, specifically those whose actions that make the leap from reasonable civil protest to violent discrimination?
Luke, thank you for the thoughtful reply. I am more than content with opinions expressed as reasonably as you have. We agree to disagree on the liability of John’s statement. I reckon I could easily convict John in most US jurisdictions of violent speech, and especially violent speech about killing a POTUS. However, let us leave that disagreement aside. We agree otherswise. Thank you Luke.
I’d like to challenge John McWhorter to say one good thing about Donald Trump as a person, and one good thing about any of his policies.
The DEI folks did not develop the intellectual muscle needed to defend themselves from the Trumpian onslaught--they simply branded all dissenters as "racist" and demanded that they shut up. Now, they don't know what to say now that the "racist" charge no longer carries the same stigma.
Agree DEI is a political loser. But it's sad all the DEI folks being fired are going out seemingly without a peep.
Agreed. But still it's sort of sad the DEI types are leaving the stage without so much as a peep.
It's interesting how the DEI Industry seems to be going down without a fight. I have some sense why that is the case. Why do people think that's the case?
Because it is run by mediocre race baiters. It’s a testament to how much good will and desire for all people to get along and have a chance to succeed there is in the USA that we have allowed such a blatantly racist program to keep its claws in use for so long.
Because it became a political loser?
Professor Loury,
The internet rabbit hole led me to an article considering some of the economic theories of Henry Charles Carey as related to President Trump's tariffs. Link to the article: https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-thinker-who-explains-trumps-tariffs/
Wondering if you might share your thoughts on the contents of the article as well as your views on Henry Charles Carey's theories. I am intrigued by the social dynamics of his writing as described in the article.
Thanks for all your content and insights on the many sides of many topics. You be you. That's all that matters. BTW "Late Admissions" is next in my non-fiction library.
Ted
Dear Glenn (and John),
Given some of the contentious questions recently I have a linguistic softie that is puzzling me. Great minds such as Victor Davis Hanson, Jordan Peterson and - yes - Dr. Loury, have used the term "coronate", as in "Kamala Harris was coronated". This suggests there's some kind of erroneous mental path from coronation to "coronate", rather than from crowned to coronation. One of the communications (!) professionals at my work actually uttered the phrase "the report will be "publicated". Yikes! How can such an eminent brain trust of native english speakers go so wrong?! Love the show as always and best to you both. JW
Glenn; How I stumbled onto you and your cadre of sidekicks, I do not recall. However, it has been a blessing. I am delighted to support your efforts. Count on it continuing. Your banter is sharp, ( steel on steel,,,,,lots of sparks.....wheeee) but honest and appears to come from a good heart. If it's ever appropriate, I requesst that you paint a picture of your impressions of the dream you have in mind should all of your efforts come to fruition and the world was delightful, free of all the anger and sinister crap we have to deal with. 75 years on the planet, and I'm so tired of the black-white- Jewish-Nazi-bigot-racism- political mush. Geeeez...will we ever make it to peace and brotherly love? From your point of view....are there any indicators , targets or sign postss of good things ahead? I want to focus on those things. What are you striving for....specifically? I want to get there, asap. I read most of the posts popping up on your sites. You attract brilliant minds.....oh, so articulate. However, the pattern I see is a tribe of very intelligent people spending significant effort to dissect turds in search of the stinky bits that they can argue against. Oh, if only a small portion of their efforts could could be focused on formlate positive action plans to heal the errors they enjoy pointing out with academic poetry. The stink they uncover lingers and causes even more angst. Thanks for allowing me a bit of venting time.
Glenn -
With respect to Israel/Gaza, you've roundly condemned some Israeli actions. When asked to compare actions to US actions in WW-II, you've expressed condemnation of some US actions as well. Thinking about the US strategic bombing of Japan from 1944 - 1945, you've expressed the opinions that "it might have been a military necessity" and "those people (we?) have blood on our hands".
I wonder how you reconcile those statements. Imagine you're talking to a 20 year old in 1944, who's thinking about volunteering for the USAAF and wants to be a B-29 pilot. Do you encourage him or discourage him? Telling him he'll "have blood on his hands" seems pretty discouraging.
OTOH, not bombing (by assumption) leads to bad outcomes, at least for the US, and plausibly for Japan as well.
Can a person or country justify "blood on their hands"?
Are there scenarios where all outcomes have "blood on your hands"?
I'm also thinking about the trolley car problem. If I throw the switch, do I have blood on my hands? More than if I do nothing?
I think this is a really interesting question. The obvious answer would be that, if anyone has blood on his hands over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's Truman. For what it's worth, the pilot of the Enola Gay didn't regret his role in the bombing, which is not the same as disavowing responsibility.
But in a war, it seems like the phrase "blood on your hands" is misleading, since it attributes moral culpability to the individual. Anyone who pulls a trigger, even in a war, has some kind of moral culpability if the bullet kills someone—he could have refused the assignment and accepted the penalty. But even if he does pull the trigger, he's following explicit or implicit orders, which implicates the chain of command all the way up to the president. (I'm excluding unsanctioned atrocities like My Lai.)
And the slug that exits the barrel of the gun had a long journey. Are owners of munitions factories implicated? What about workers at munitions factories? What about the miners who dug up the ore used to make the bullets?
I'm not saying "WE ALL HAVE BLOOD ON OUR HANDS"—that's too simplistic. Just thinking about a morally ambiguous situation in which agency is constrained and shared. I recently reread Tim O'Brien's "How to Tell a True War Story," which is partially about the problem of trying to understand and communicate about war, where conventional moral categories break down:
"A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things they have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it."
Good read.
https://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~cinichol/CreativeWriting/323/OBrienWarStory.pdf
I guess the question is "Which is the lesser evil, to pull the trigger, or not pull the trigger and accept the consequences?" Which is a restatement of the trolley car problem. And I've decided that -- in some cases -- the lesser evil is to pull the trigger.
John, with the approval of the vast majority of voters, your university is being defunded, and the dangerous foreign students like Mahmoud Khalio deported and his ilk given notice. You are obviously entitled to your opinions, nowever, your opinions once came arguably close to a call for violence. Glenn, bravely stood by you and I reluctantly gave him credit for loyalty. I now withdraw that credit. John maybe you should 'empathise' not 'sympathise' with the majority zietfeist. Question: John when will the penny drop wity you?
Do you think ICE should disappear John next Will?
What do you mean by 'disappear'? Come on Luke step-up, are you suggesting that ICE kills people. Exactly what are you implying, please don't prevaricate. ICE is a government agency and must stay within the constitution and thus the law. I don't relish seeing John Mcwhorter prosecuted but I do want John to at least have empathy, not sympathy, with DJT and the MAGA Movement. I try to have empathy, not sympathy, for John's opinions.
lol. Alright, forget the ‘disappear’ bit. But walk me through what you’re saying here:
1. You mention how Khalil gets picked up by ICE for his protests at Columbia.
2. Then you say that John’s rhetoric came awfully close to a call to violence.
3. And finally you ask when the penny will drop for John.
Are you implying that John should be careful with what he says or the law might get involved?
Luke, I'm sorely tempted to treat you like an ignoramus, but I'll make this effort.
(a). "Forget the 'disappear' bit", WHY? You raised 'disappear' now explain.
(b). Khalil's visa is to study, and can be cancelled for any or no reason.
(c). John admits he crossed the line and then pulled back. He was in fact calling for the violent removal of DJT. Even then John waw not contrite.
(d). The American people are overwhelmingly supportive of DJT and the MAGA Movement. John as an ACADEMIC should empathise (understand), he need not sympathise (agree with) DJT and MAGA.
(e). I empathise with John, I don't sympathise with him. John away from his jaundiced opinions of DJT and MAGA is probably a decent and good man.
Hahaha! I'm hurt you don't remember me Will! The last time you called me an ignoramus we learned just how ignorant YOU were regarding all things Jan 6: https://glennloury.substack.com/p/john-mcwhorter-november-2024-q-and/comment/80855356
But I'm honestly not here to debate. Just looking for some clarification: Your comment seemed like a thinly veiled threat. "Watch your rhetoric John or ICE might getcha." Maybe this wasn't your intent though. Maybe the comments on Khalil's deportation and the "penny dropping" for John were unrelated.
I remember you. We are here to debate. My point is that free speech is subject to two obvious exceptioins (1) Speech that encourages violence, perceived or otherwise. (b) Speech that breaches the law i.e. child pornography. The US Federal Law is even more explicite. Glenn does NOT agree with me and many others besides. Nevertheless, there are millions of Americans who do AGREE with me. John is a Columbia university academic he had no business voicing sympathy for others who might wish to engage in violence against a POTUS. John wisely walked it back, but he arrogantly continued to shoot his mouth off. The DoJ might take an interest.