I hope you’re not under the impression that most people in this particular subculture are out for the truth. Even GL at times can be seen doubling down on ideological presups.
Also the idea that she’s not happy to “educate or enlighten her audience”. Dude this was a discussion on HER podcast. It was shared to the Glenn Show but it was her podcast and I’ll be honest, she’s spent a lot more time on the ground interacting with heterodox thinkers than you want to give her credit for.
i'd like to say i understand what you're saying but dont see how it follows what i said. but i'm not sure i understand your point +i really dont see how it follows anything i said.
where the podcast occurred is irrelevant.
where she's spent her time on the ground interacting is irrelevant. its a logical fallacy to think bcoz she interacts w heterdox thinkers she is interested in truth. see evanf above but here's a taste:
Also, her push back against the importance of the United States in World War Two came from a place of exceptional (and, might I suggest possibly willful) ignorance. She compared the sacrifice of the United States to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and, while not wanting to devalue the human lives lost, clearly thought that the Soviet losses (which she put at 27M (a number available on Wikipedia) and others have put at "over 20M" but disputed, and other researches have stated as 25M (https://daviscenter.fas.harvard.edu/insights/soviet-role-world-war-ii-realities-and-myths)) were much greater.
i'm sorry but i was pointing out that activists are neither philosophers using logic nor economists using calculus to teach: rather they are using any means to sway our opinion whether reasoned or not. but ok young lady xo
"she's an activist +not interested in being honest. she is happy to provide incorrect info to further a cause but not to educate, enlighten her audience. theres a big difference. no?"
Besides the massive amount of psychologizing here, I'd say Glenn falls under a similar category as BJG. If you think he's not also an activist Idk what to tell you. He definitely has strong ideological blinders (like we all do). He may be an economist, but so is Richard Wolff, Paul Krugmann and Joseph Stiglitz. All three economists (two of whom are award winning) are to the left to varying degrees. Are you going to give their views the same legitimacy you give Loury's? I could be wrong but I don't think so, so basically in the context of this conversation none of that matters.
So falling back on her position as an activist doesn't discredit her as a truth seeker. Her being pushing historical revisionism (I personally don't think the Soviets were exceptional in WWII) doesn't negate the wide set of beliefs and policies she subscribes to either.
here's what you've convinced me from you arguments from opinion +lack of evidence: you are much much younger than glenn plus are very enamored w gray.
i am much closer in age to glenn +altho i dont usually agree w him i listen to his casts +he provides much better evidence for his arguments than either your or gray.
thnx but i don't see any point in the yo-yo back n forth. i know that we have both made our positions very clear +neither of us needs to explain our positions any further. got it? i hope so.
due to prog degenerative neuro disorder i make mistakes+deleted to edit. i made make another delete while my cat barks to get inside. my god i don't have enough frustration here
This has almost nothing to do with my comment but ok, but I guess everyone who you disagree with is either "dishonest", unwilling to be educated or fact free. Lol what shitty way to handle other people.
“Do you think she’s on a mission for the truth”
I hope you’re not under the impression that most people in this particular subculture are out for the truth. Even GL at times can be seen doubling down on ideological presups.
Also the idea that she’s not happy to “educate or enlighten her audience”. Dude this was a discussion on HER podcast. It was shared to the Glenn Show but it was her podcast and I’ll be honest, she’s spent a lot more time on the ground interacting with heterodox thinkers than you want to give her credit for.
i'd like to say i understand what you're saying but dont see how it follows what i said. but i'm not sure i understand your point +i really dont see how it follows anything i said.
where the podcast occurred is irrelevant.
where she's spent her time on the ground interacting is irrelevant. its a logical fallacy to think bcoz she interacts w heterdox thinkers she is interested in truth. see evanf above but here's a taste:
Also, her push back against the importance of the United States in World War Two came from a place of exceptional (and, might I suggest possibly willful) ignorance. She compared the sacrifice of the United States to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and, while not wanting to devalue the human lives lost, clearly thought that the Soviet losses (which she put at 27M (a number available on Wikipedia) and others have put at "over 20M" but disputed, and other researches have stated as 25M (https://daviscenter.fas.harvard.edu/insights/soviet-role-world-war-ii-realities-and-myths)) were much greater.
i'm sorry but i was pointing out that activists are neither philosophers using logic nor economists using calculus to teach: rather they are using any means to sway our opinion whether reasoned or not. but ok young lady xo
Here's your claim
"she's an activist +not interested in being honest. she is happy to provide incorrect info to further a cause but not to educate, enlighten her audience. theres a big difference. no?"
Besides the massive amount of psychologizing here, I'd say Glenn falls under a similar category as BJG. If you think he's not also an activist Idk what to tell you. He definitely has strong ideological blinders (like we all do). He may be an economist, but so is Richard Wolff, Paul Krugmann and Joseph Stiglitz. All three economists (two of whom are award winning) are to the left to varying degrees. Are you going to give their views the same legitimacy you give Loury's? I could be wrong but I don't think so, so basically in the context of this conversation none of that matters.
So falling back on her position as an activist doesn't discredit her as a truth seeker. Her being pushing historical revisionism (I personally don't think the Soviets were exceptional in WWII) doesn't negate the wide set of beliefs and policies she subscribes to either.
here's what you've convinced me from you arguments from opinion +lack of evidence: you are much much younger than glenn plus are very enamored w gray.
i am much closer in age to glenn +altho i dont usually agree w him i listen to his casts +he provides much better evidence for his arguments than either your or gray.
thnx but i don't see any point in the yo-yo back n forth. i know that we have both made our positions very clear +neither of us needs to explain our positions any further. got it? i hope so.
due to prog degenerative neuro disorder i make mistakes+deleted to edit. i made make another delete while my cat barks to get inside. my god i don't have enough frustration here
This has almost nothing to do with my comment but ok, but I guess everyone who you disagree with is either "dishonest", unwilling to be educated or fact free. Lol what shitty way to handle other people.