I believe you are saying a sell out is someone who knowingly lies in a way that will harm their community or natural constituency for fame, fortune, power, or influence. Am I correct?
To turn this conversation on it's head, let me suggest that Al Sharpton, specifically in how he handled the Tawana Brawley incident, was a sell out.
From the Wikipedia article on the incident:
He said that officials all the way up to the state government were trying to cover up for defendants in the case because they were white. He further suggested that the Ku Klux Klan, the Irish Republican Army, and the Mafia had conspired with the U.S. government in the alleged cover-up. He discouraged Brawley and her family from testifying, which he justified by claiming that an unjust refusal by the state to prosecute the alleged attackers was inevitable. He conditioned interviews with investigators on Cuomo, Abrams and Ryan undergoing psychological evaluations. When Roger L. Green, an influential Black member of the New York State Assembly, spoke out against Sharpton's language as unhelpful and needlessly divisive, Sharpton responded by calling him "a state-sponsored Uncle Tom." Sharpton's former aide, Perry McKinnon, said that Sharpton, Maddox, and Mason were unconcerned with Brawley, and were using the case to "tak[e] over the town," as he had heard Sharpton say that the case could make him and Brawley's other two advisers "the biggest niggers in New York."
I'm summary -
Al Sharpton damaged race relations and gave ammunition to those who would be inclined to disbelieve rape, abuse, and racial discrimination claims of women of color. He did it knowingly and cynically for money, power, fame, and influence. He damaged the very community he claimed to defend. He was a sell out.
Agreed completely, if you're trying to persuade people, sometimes you have to tone it down -- your first move can't be to hit them over the head with a brick. One of Peterson's 12 rules is "Always tell the truth. Or at least, don't lie." I think his rule is something like "I don't say things that make me weak". There's a lot of room for diplomacy between "all guns blazing" and "lying".
The whole concept of "sellout" stinks of racial essentialism. Honest question: When was the average black American experience so different from the average white American experience that it made sense to talk of "the" black perspective vs "the" white perspective? Clearly, in the slave South (and probably Reconstruction South) that would be true (e.g. Douglass' speech about July 4th). But post 1964? Post Obama?
Not sure intellectuals make those trade-offs so much as advocates. Legitimate roles for both, but when I think of an intellectual, I think of, say, Albert Camus - whom I don't know made those trade-offs. He kept a day job so he didn't have to worry so much about paying the bills through is novels and essays. Yes, an advocate must consider their greatest impact in ways a pure intellectual would not. But not too many pure intellectuals out there, and it's good to have advocates on my side of most of the issues.
Of course we 'sell out'. A vast majority of white people living in Africa MUST 'sell out' or face the consequences. It is the norm globally. The act of 'selling out' is both a survival and self-serving mechanism, and the line is not to sell out, if to do so will harm others.
I agree on the point of appropriate "packaging" of a message. I disagree--violently--that this can be characterized as "selling out." To be honest, I don't know what the term actually means and associate it with assholes who have no better argument to make. Simply put, if you have an argument, you don't need to resort to ad hominem attacks. Characterizing your opponent as a "sellout" or using any number of other tried-and-true tools of the knuckle-dragger, means you have no legitimate argument.
Poor babies. Black Conservatives whine about being called sellouts, yet they pile on when Blacks who disagree with the Black Conservative mindset are called DEI. DEI VP Harris kicked Donald Trump’s behind on the debate stage.
Clarence Thomas received gifts from Harlan Crow that he did not disclose. We are told that Thomas is not a grifter, but more honorable than Barack Obama. Pease.
Uncle Tom was a hero willing to protect members of his community from human predators. Sambo was the sellout. If you are called an Uncle Tom, laugh at the ignorance of the person bringing the charge.
JD Vance repeats the lie that Haitians in Springfield, Ohio are eating pets. The defense of Vance offered here is to excuse way the slander. There is no direct confrontation.
Byron Donalds, etc. are called out for policy statements.
Most Blacks do not live in a dystopian world. Unemployment is low. Poverty is low. There are multiple organizations fighting to improve the Black community. This is a glorious time to be young, gifted, and Black or aging and reaping the benefits of a successful Black life. We are not going back.
The worse thing that could happen would be to follow the behavior of modern Conservatives.
Again, compare Barack and Michelle Obama, Kamala Harris, Oprah Winfrey, and Katanji Brown Jackson to Candace Owens, Herschel Walker, Clarence Thomas, etc.
Keep up the good work you do. What the two of you teach and preach holds out more hope for black Americans who have been left behind than what your critics say.
I am surprised in this sellout conversation no one mentioned Kamala Harris. I understand sellout as someone whose opinion and influence ware open for purchase. And that price (whether money or positions of power) can override principles or loyalty to a group. It seems that she is a woman of color willing to completely reverse positions in order to get votes and win office. And, since a large number of the votes she is trying to win is from the white lower and middle class, isn’t she selling out in the classic sense? I hate this term and don’t agree with it. But I was surprised John called out JD Vance when Harris seems much more aligned with the classic definition.
Off topic, but I just read that Amy Wax was suspended with half pay for one year by my alma mater Penn. Although I've had my criticisms of Amy, I don't agree with this particular decision. I'm wondering Glenn if you'll have your good friend Amy Wax on again in the aftermath of this recent news.
I also saw that Amy will be speaking at the upcoming American Renaissance conference, so if this is truly the end of the road as far as her academic career, it seems like she's definitely lined up her post-academia gig.
"[The reprimand letter] also said that she had breached “the requirement that student grades be kept private by publicly speaking about the grades of law students by race, and continuing to do so even after being cautioned by the dean that it was a violation of university policy.”"
I don't think academic freedom/freedom of speech should extend to allowing professors to publicize the grades of their students in contravention of a confidentiality policy.
I believe you are saying a sell out is someone who knowingly lies in a way that will harm their community or natural constituency for fame, fortune, power, or influence. Am I correct?
To turn this conversation on it's head, let me suggest that Al Sharpton, specifically in how he handled the Tawana Brawley incident, was a sell out.
From the Wikipedia article on the incident:
He said that officials all the way up to the state government were trying to cover up for defendants in the case because they were white. He further suggested that the Ku Klux Klan, the Irish Republican Army, and the Mafia had conspired with the U.S. government in the alleged cover-up. He discouraged Brawley and her family from testifying, which he justified by claiming that an unjust refusal by the state to prosecute the alleged attackers was inevitable. He conditioned interviews with investigators on Cuomo, Abrams and Ryan undergoing psychological evaluations. When Roger L. Green, an influential Black member of the New York State Assembly, spoke out against Sharpton's language as unhelpful and needlessly divisive, Sharpton responded by calling him "a state-sponsored Uncle Tom." Sharpton's former aide, Perry McKinnon, said that Sharpton, Maddox, and Mason were unconcerned with Brawley, and were using the case to "tak[e] over the town," as he had heard Sharpton say that the case could make him and Brawley's other two advisers "the biggest niggers in New York."
I'm summary -
Al Sharpton damaged race relations and gave ammunition to those who would be inclined to disbelieve rape, abuse, and racial discrimination claims of women of color. He did it knowingly and cynically for money, power, fame, and influence. He damaged the very community he claimed to defend. He was a sell out.
Agreed completely, if you're trying to persuade people, sometimes you have to tone it down -- your first move can't be to hit them over the head with a brick. One of Peterson's 12 rules is "Always tell the truth. Or at least, don't lie." I think his rule is something like "I don't say things that make me weak". There's a lot of room for diplomacy between "all guns blazing" and "lying".
The whole concept of "sellout" stinks of racial essentialism. Honest question: When was the average black American experience so different from the average white American experience that it made sense to talk of "the" black perspective vs "the" white perspective? Clearly, in the slave South (and probably Reconstruction South) that would be true (e.g. Douglass' speech about July 4th). But post 1964? Post Obama?
Not sure intellectuals make those trade-offs so much as advocates. Legitimate roles for both, but when I think of an intellectual, I think of, say, Albert Camus - whom I don't know made those trade-offs. He kept a day job so he didn't have to worry so much about paying the bills through is novels and essays. Yes, an advocate must consider their greatest impact in ways a pure intellectual would not. But not too many pure intellectuals out there, and it's good to have advocates on my side of most of the issues.
Of course we 'sell out'. A vast majority of white people living in Africa MUST 'sell out' or face the consequences. It is the norm globally. The act of 'selling out' is both a survival and self-serving mechanism, and the line is not to sell out, if to do so will harm others.
I agree on the point of appropriate "packaging" of a message. I disagree--violently--that this can be characterized as "selling out." To be honest, I don't know what the term actually means and associate it with assholes who have no better argument to make. Simply put, if you have an argument, you don't need to resort to ad hominem attacks. Characterizing your opponent as a "sellout" or using any number of other tried-and-true tools of the knuckle-dragger, means you have no legitimate argument.
Glenn, you and John are definitely not sellouts! But interesting discussion as usual. Here's information about the Supreme Court justices' salaries.
https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/salaries-for-members-of-congress-supreme-court-justices-and-the-president
Poor babies. Black Conservatives whine about being called sellouts, yet they pile on when Blacks who disagree with the Black Conservative mindset are called DEI. DEI VP Harris kicked Donald Trump’s behind on the debate stage.
Clarence Thomas received gifts from Harlan Crow that he did not disclose. We are told that Thomas is not a grifter, but more honorable than Barack Obama. Pease.
Uncle Tom was a hero willing to protect members of his community from human predators. Sambo was the sellout. If you are called an Uncle Tom, laugh at the ignorance of the person bringing the charge.
JD Vance repeats the lie that Haitians in Springfield, Ohio are eating pets. The defense of Vance offered here is to excuse way the slander. There is no direct confrontation.
Byron Donalds, etc. are called out for policy statements.
Most Blacks do not live in a dystopian world. Unemployment is low. Poverty is low. There are multiple organizations fighting to improve the Black community. This is a glorious time to be young, gifted, and Black or aging and reaping the benefits of a successful Black life. We are not going back.
The worse thing that could happen would be to follow the behavior of modern Conservatives.
Again, compare Barack and Michelle Obama, Kamala Harris, Oprah Winfrey, and Katanji Brown Jackson to Candace Owens, Herschel Walker, Clarence Thomas, etc.
Keep up the good work you do. What the two of you teach and preach holds out more hope for black Americans who have been left behind than what your critics say.
I am surprised in this sellout conversation no one mentioned Kamala Harris. I understand sellout as someone whose opinion and influence ware open for purchase. And that price (whether money or positions of power) can override principles or loyalty to a group. It seems that she is a woman of color willing to completely reverse positions in order to get votes and win office. And, since a large number of the votes she is trying to win is from the white lower and middle class, isn’t she selling out in the classic sense? I hate this term and don’t agree with it. But I was surprised John called out JD Vance when Harris seems much more aligned with the classic definition.
Off topic, but I just read that Amy Wax was suspended with half pay for one year by my alma mater Penn. Although I've had my criticisms of Amy, I don't agree with this particular decision. I'm wondering Glenn if you'll have your good friend Amy Wax on again in the aftermath of this recent news.
I also saw that Amy will be speaking at the upcoming American Renaissance conference, so if this is truly the end of the road as far as her academic career, it seems like she's definitely lined up her post-academia gig.
There's at least one aspect of the rationale for her suspension that seems potentially reasonable:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/23/us/university-of-pennsylvania-law-school-amy-wax.html
"[The reprimand letter] also said that she had breached “the requirement that student grades be kept private by publicly speaking about the grades of law students by race, and continuing to do so even after being cautioned by the dean that it was a violation of university policy.”"
I don't think academic freedom/freedom of speech should extend to allowing professors to publicize the grades of their students in contravention of a confidentiality policy.
That was a dirty secret they didn't want out in the open. They hate truth.
Well, it appears some people have been running in circles for forty years.
Look what the Chinese were able to do in 40 years.
Look what the people in Korea were able to do in 40 years.
Look what the people from Singapore were able to do in 40 years.
Maybe it's time we cut our losses. Evidently some people are just not going to make it, and we're flogging a dead horse.