Dear Glenn and John - I apologize if my inquiry is redundant as I only recently joined…
Disparate socioeconomic outcome among ethnic groups is one leg of the study to consider when evaluating “the problem”. I use quotation marks not out of condescension or dismissal of historical evils, rather I question that “the problem” is fully defined and all variables and understood/accepted. The anti-racist scholars of today have not revealed undeniable truths or governing principles. These claims seem more like an expression of pain rather than scientific analysis of cause and effect.
Perhaps it is impossible for white individuals to truly understand the residual pain caused by past atrocities. And perhaps it is the duty of liberal pundits and activists to remind white people that they should feel shame.
My question relates to the human element of conflict resolution. Do the liberal pundits really think it’s productive to call white people “mayo”, “white bread”, fascist, nationalist, etc? Is it supposed to be cheeky, cute, or amusing? Does it help solve the problem or intentionally/untentionally ignore “the problem”? Will serious people ever be given the latitude and resources to define the problem?
I am not suggesting that white people are victims because someone calls them a mean name. But if I call someone an asshole, what can I truly expect in their response?
Perhaps I have posted this question to late, but here goes. I was wondering what your thoughts are on the recently published Atlantic article entitled "The Elite College Students Who Can't Read Books." In a nutshell, the article is saying that students at elite universities now have a harder time reading whole books and wrestling with their ideas than students of several decades ago. Have you found this to be true to your experience as teachers at ivy league institutions? If so, what is to be done?
You have, for your entire career, been a champion of what might be called "the politics of responsibility". I would define this as a worldview centered around self-reliance and epitomized in your oft-repeated phrase "No one is coming to save us!" in reference to the journey ahead of black Americans as an ethnic and cultural group.
Can you help us understand why you choose not to apply this same standard of self-reliance and personal responsibility in your analysis of the struggle facing the Palestinian people, as it relates to their own journey toward statehood, sovereignty, independence, and success?
While the conditions in Gaza post October 7 are obviously quite bad, there are many Palestinian communities in the West Bank (Jericho, Nablus, Bethlehem) and in Israel proper which have for decades been operating at much higher levels of social cohesion and economic vitality than the ghettos of West Baltimore, Chicago or St. Louis. Why is what's good for the goose not good for the gander in this case?
I really enjoyed John’s discussion of his interviews with Richard Dawkins in a recent episode. Do the two of you have any favorite interviews or guests that have influenced you the most.
In your first discussion with John after January 6th 2021, you told John "I was wrong about Trump" and "you (John) were right". Do you still stand by this statement? If not, what was it that made you change your mind?
Do you think the 2024 re-election of Donald Trump is historically momentous, on par with iconic movements of the past?
I happened to notice Volume 7 of the Durants' "Story of Civilization" on the shelf today: "The Age of Reason Begins." That seems about right. Trump often said in speeches, "I'm not really a conservative. I mean, I am, but what I really am is common sense."
Could we be entering a period where reason and common sense once again prevail? I want Pretend Land to go away and never come back. That possibility fuels my own optimism.
Question for Glenn: By welcoming Trump's reelection, do you view yourself as abandoning the liberal democratic tradition? (I'm referring to philosophical liberalism, not the brand of politics associated with the Democratic Party.)
I hope you select this question. You come across lately as being strongly isolationist and I'm curious where you pitch your tent regarding foreign military policy. You set up a false and forced binary (in your after show thoughts of the Trump victory with John) of either being a complete isolationist or a warmonger. You completely ignore the path of selective deterrence which Trump effectively marshaled in his first term to keep people in check without any wars. You further seem to cast your lot with the extreme isolationists by suggesting confronting Russia or Iran would cause world war three or nuclear war (which is especially perplexing in Iran's case as they don't have it yet).
You obviously don't want America to be the world's policemen. My question is: what alternative would you have? The alternative of apparently Jeffrey Sachs' preference (according to you) that the UN lead the world - that hive of corruption, incompetence, impotence, and evil? The other alternative is a different world power filling the power vacuum - who would you prefer Russia? China? I imagine not. So, in the end: what is your better and rational alternative to America being the world's policemen?
A question for John: is there a widely accepted metric for linguistic complexity and, should this exist, do the measurements correlate to how advanced the societies using the languages are?
A question for Glenn: In your book you describe yourself making a bit of a shift to the left when speaking on prison/criminal justice disparities. You finish more as a conservative. Thomas Sowell doesn't seem to make the shifts back and forth as his writings/beliefs are based on "the facts" as he might say. Do you think "the facts" supported your case when you embraced the left leaning philosophies regarding CJ/incarceration?
Well, well, well… This is a rhetorical question for Professor McWhorter. I was wondering if perhaps a certain double standard has creeped into your subconscious? I noticed that you were greatly offended when Prosecutor Keith Ellison, wrote to you and Professor Loury and used the term, “Gentlemen” instead of addressing you individually and by your respective academic titles; yet, you also defended yourself when someone asked if it was not wrong to refer to Vice-President elect, JD Vance, as a MomFornicator. Had you noticed a certain disparity of treatment standards? Inquiring minds want to know. ;-)
Of course there is a slight difference. In one instance you are being addressed directly and in the other, you are talking about someone who is not present. : )
Robin D'Angelo has not been held to account for her alleged plagiarism by U. Washington. From what I saw, she lifted entire sections from the work of others. Do either of you have connections with academics who could tell us what really went on behind the scenes not to discipline her? I think she should be stripped of her Ph.D. - Rhonda
To both. Now that Trump has won & the backlash against "woke" rhetoric & actions prevailed, Are you seeing or hearing of any changes in your respective universities? Are your students talking or are they self-censoring on the other side?
Do either of you gents (ahem! LOL) have any familiarity with Stephen L. Carter, law professor and writer? While I don't have a Bloomberg subscription and haven't read his articles, I have read all his fiction work and the biography of his grandmother who was part of Dewey's legal prosecution team. He'd make a very interesting guest and I think it would be a great show no matter what you three discuss.
At this point I have only one question for this show. How is it possible that Glenn does not have any interest in responding to each and every part of this?
Dear Glenn and John - I apologize if my inquiry is redundant as I only recently joined…
Disparate socioeconomic outcome among ethnic groups is one leg of the study to consider when evaluating “the problem”. I use quotation marks not out of condescension or dismissal of historical evils, rather I question that “the problem” is fully defined and all variables and understood/accepted. The anti-racist scholars of today have not revealed undeniable truths or governing principles. These claims seem more like an expression of pain rather than scientific analysis of cause and effect.
Perhaps it is impossible for white individuals to truly understand the residual pain caused by past atrocities. And perhaps it is the duty of liberal pundits and activists to remind white people that they should feel shame.
My question relates to the human element of conflict resolution. Do the liberal pundits really think it’s productive to call white people “mayo”, “white bread”, fascist, nationalist, etc? Is it supposed to be cheeky, cute, or amusing? Does it help solve the problem or intentionally/untentionally ignore “the problem”? Will serious people ever be given the latitude and resources to define the problem?
I am not suggesting that white people are victims because someone calls them a mean name. But if I call someone an asshole, what can I truly expect in their response?
Hello Professor Loury and Professor McWhorter,
Perhaps I have posted this question to late, but here goes. I was wondering what your thoughts are on the recently published Atlantic article entitled "The Elite College Students Who Can't Read Books." In a nutshell, the article is saying that students at elite universities now have a harder time reading whole books and wrestling with their ideas than students of several decades ago. Have you found this to be true to your experience as teachers at ivy league institutions? If so, what is to be done?
Glenn,
You have, for your entire career, been a champion of what might be called "the politics of responsibility". I would define this as a worldview centered around self-reliance and epitomized in your oft-repeated phrase "No one is coming to save us!" in reference to the journey ahead of black Americans as an ethnic and cultural group.
Can you help us understand why you choose not to apply this same standard of self-reliance and personal responsibility in your analysis of the struggle facing the Palestinian people, as it relates to their own journey toward statehood, sovereignty, independence, and success?
While the conditions in Gaza post October 7 are obviously quite bad, there are many Palestinian communities in the West Bank (Jericho, Nablus, Bethlehem) and in Israel proper which have for decades been operating at much higher levels of social cohesion and economic vitality than the ghettos of West Baltimore, Chicago or St. Louis. Why is what's good for the goose not good for the gander in this case?
I really enjoyed John’s discussion of his interviews with Richard Dawkins in a recent episode. Do the two of you have any favorite interviews or guests that have influenced you the most.
Glenn,
In your first discussion with John after January 6th 2021, you told John "I was wrong about Trump" and "you (John) were right". Do you still stand by this statement? If not, what was it that made you change your mind?
Did Morning Joe and Mika not just stick a pin in the "Trump Is Evil Incarnate" balloon the Democrats spent the past ten years inflating?
Mind if I quote the Bible? From Matthew 7:
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
I'm not always clear, so I'll point out the Democrats are the foolish man, and the sand they built their house upon was "Trump Is Evil Incarnate."
Do you think the 2024 re-election of Donald Trump is historically momentous, on par with iconic movements of the past?
I happened to notice Volume 7 of the Durants' "Story of Civilization" on the shelf today: "The Age of Reason Begins." That seems about right. Trump often said in speeches, "I'm not really a conservative. I mean, I am, but what I really am is common sense."
Could we be entering a period where reason and common sense once again prevail? I want Pretend Land to go away and never come back. That possibility fuels my own optimism.
Question for Glenn: By welcoming Trump's reelection, do you view yourself as abandoning the liberal democratic tradition? (I'm referring to philosophical liberalism, not the brand of politics associated with the Democratic Party.)
Dr Loury:
I hope you select this question. You come across lately as being strongly isolationist and I'm curious where you pitch your tent regarding foreign military policy. You set up a false and forced binary (in your after show thoughts of the Trump victory with John) of either being a complete isolationist or a warmonger. You completely ignore the path of selective deterrence which Trump effectively marshaled in his first term to keep people in check without any wars. You further seem to cast your lot with the extreme isolationists by suggesting confronting Russia or Iran would cause world war three or nuclear war (which is especially perplexing in Iran's case as they don't have it yet).
You obviously don't want America to be the world's policemen. My question is: what alternative would you have? The alternative of apparently Jeffrey Sachs' preference (according to you) that the UN lead the world - that hive of corruption, incompetence, impotence, and evil? The other alternative is a different world power filling the power vacuum - who would you prefer Russia? China? I imagine not. So, in the end: what is your better and rational alternative to America being the world's policemen?
A question for John: is there a widely accepted metric for linguistic complexity and, should this exist, do the measurements correlate to how advanced the societies using the languages are?
A question for Glenn: In your book you describe yourself making a bit of a shift to the left when speaking on prison/criminal justice disparities. You finish more as a conservative. Thomas Sowell doesn't seem to make the shifts back and forth as his writings/beliefs are based on "the facts" as he might say. Do you think "the facts" supported your case when you embraced the left leaning philosophies regarding CJ/incarceration?
Dear Glenn and John,
Are we in the mutual ruin of the contending classes?
Hope you are well.
Well, well, well… This is a rhetorical question for Professor McWhorter. I was wondering if perhaps a certain double standard has creeped into your subconscious? I noticed that you were greatly offended when Prosecutor Keith Ellison, wrote to you and Professor Loury and used the term, “Gentlemen” instead of addressing you individually and by your respective academic titles; yet, you also defended yourself when someone asked if it was not wrong to refer to Vice-President elect, JD Vance, as a MomFornicator. Had you noticed a certain disparity of treatment standards? Inquiring minds want to know. ;-)
Of course there is a slight difference. In one instance you are being addressed directly and in the other, you are talking about someone who is not present. : )
I'm not sure a Q&A thread is the right place for a rhetorical question. Maybe Glenn should start a "Q" thread for these. :)
Or perhaps an intro could go something like this: I’m feeling a little verklempt… Okay here’s a topic ______ discuss among yourselves. ;-)
Robin D'Angelo has not been held to account for her alleged plagiarism by U. Washington. From what I saw, she lifted entire sections from the work of others. Do either of you have connections with academics who could tell us what really went on behind the scenes not to discipline her? I think she should be stripped of her Ph.D. - Rhonda
To both. Now that Trump has won & the backlash against "woke" rhetoric & actions prevailed, Are you seeing or hearing of any changes in your respective universities? Are your students talking or are they self-censoring on the other side?
Do either of you gents (ahem! LOL) have any familiarity with Stephen L. Carter, law professor and writer? While I don't have a Bloomberg subscription and haven't read his articles, I have read all his fiction work and the biography of his grandmother who was part of Dewey's legal prosecution team. He'd make a very interesting guest and I think it would be a great show no matter what you three discuss.
At this point I have only one question for this show. How is it possible that Glenn does not have any interest in responding to each and every part of this?
https://www.commentary.org/articles/mike-cote/ta-nehisi-coates-charlatan/