They just put my friend and I in university commons, do u think theyou re gonna swap us out again since we re freshmen or does it matter?. my first earnings at sports betting with cryptocurrency - https://tinyurl.com/3fbhv4ts
Dr. Loury - I may be wrong on this, but I believe the two sides of the debate can be summarized by the following dichotomies as it relates to power:
a) Collectivism vs Individualism
b) Shame/Guilt vs Order/Force
c) Entitlement vs Accountability
d) Nurture vs Nature
You can see where this is going. Current demographic shifts are creating a power vacuum and those that harbor collectivist beliefs feel entitled to use shame and guilt to seize it. Why? I believe (without data) that their belief in their ability to nurture enables them to govern/distribute resources better, because they are in touch with how people feel. Right now, things are not fair and they are going to fix it. (In their eyes)
Identity is used as proxy to stoke historical grievances in an effort to lay claim to resources one does not have. This creates resentment which is transformed into entitlement.
"Have you or your [group identity] had any "L's in life? It is not your fault. THEY owe you and let US fix it for you. Get in line and we are going to get what is ours."
It is a very powerful message. It absolves the individual of any accountability while simultaneously providing claims to present day resources earned by past aggrievances.
AND guess who is the Paymaster when redistribution occurs? You got it, the elites who have infiltrated and disrupted institutions they erroneously believe caused inequality in the first place. It is a genius strategy as it plays heavily on emotions, especially the youth. It causes those seeking resources to align with this group. Those that have resources and are easily misinformed are now questioning their beliefs and feel compelled to transfer resources out of guilt. [For Now] Force them to? Watch out.
Here is the danger.
For the alleged oppressed: Lack of incentive and accountability:
" Since I am entitled to resources that were obtained by those currently holding them, then why should I put forth any effort into improving my personal lot in life?"
For the alleged sympathetic oppressors: Guilt will be transformed into apathy.
"Enough is enough; we are tired. We've given enough. No more resources"
For the accused oppressor: Fear and silence first, then rage.
"You call me a racist, okay. Now I can't call my child a boy or girl? It's ON".
The unintended consequences are real. Why would one support, collaborate, listen to or work with those with a collective mindset when they are going to take resources away from those that have them and make them feel bad about it to boot? The best unintended consequence is additional loopholes in the tax code to get out of paying for shame driven resource redistribution. The worst, well, we know what that is and it will make January 6 look like a Vaudeville Show.
The oppressed suffer as well because their entitlement will turn into rage which will turn into an exactment of revenge on the alleged oppressor. The "mindshare" of the disenfranchised group will shift from "how can I contribute?" to "they owe me and I will get my fair share by any means necessary". Right now, words are there weapons. [For Now]
It doesn't have to come to this, but we are already headed down that path. Thank God you are here, Dr. Loury. You are a rational interventionalist (p.c. for WokeBuster) preventing us from getting to the point of no return. I applaud your courage in speaking up about this. A real life example of a solutions oriented approach. We need more of you and I will gladly be a soldier in your army, where do I sign up?
Thank you for all you are doing and keep up the good work.
"Rather, we have to earn equal status by dint of our own efforts." - G.Loury
There comes a time when one develops a 'deaf ear' when it comes to folks who beg for stuff but won't put the time into 'doing the work' - ironically, a phrase used by woke Progressives today. DO THE WORK.
At some point it will become necessary for people to express these views rather than be silent for fear or consequence. Social Justice has "had the floor" for long enough and it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's regressive.
Ok. I agree with Glenn (in general) that problems are created, and neglected, by exaggerating “systemic” racism. However, you would never know from his speech — or from his podcasts — that the United States has serious problems that affect everybody, black, white, brown, green.
Among them:
Grotesque inequality, with an unproductive concentration of wealth at the top.
Inadequate healthcare and limited coverage compared with other advanced countries. Troubled and overburdened schools.
An increasingly rent-based economy with a declining manufacturing sector.
Enormous drug addiction and mental health problems. Crumbling infrastructure (a big bill has been passed but that doesn’t mean it’s not a problem any more).
Of course, the very VERY serious problem of climate change.
And a political system that is corrupt, unbalanced and unrepresentative.
Each one of these problems exacerbates racial disparities and tensions.
I don’t know if Glenn thinks the market solves everything. But one can’t pretend these problems don’t exist. Especially if you’re into facing reality.
Like most, if not all, other causes, race has degenerated into a racket. It is very easy to imagine this very speech being given by a future Glenn 50 years from now, because perpetuating racism, or the idea of racism, is advantageous to a great many people. It helps those people sell books, it gives them political power, it puts them on a media platform. They have no incentive to listen to, let alone agree, with anything in this speech and every incentive to do the opposite.
This is how activism works. Its role is not to solve issues; it is to perpetuate them for as long as possible. The idea that life for minorities today is unchanged from, say, the 1940s is patently offensive and also insulting to the people who lived in those times. When a person who has no concept of what it was like to live in the "colored only" era acts as if life is unchanged, that person's attempt at drawing equivalency between now and then deserves ridicule, not head-nodding.
The word "racism" itself has been cheapened to the point of being worthless. This was most recently evidenced by the SCOTUS nomination hearings for Ms. Jackson, during which we were told that the only possible opposition was based on skin color. This fails, epically, on two counts: first, many of the people making that declaration were around for the Kavanaugh hearings, when a white man was accused of being a serial rapist with zero evidence. Second, the support for Ms. Jackson was based in large part on her being black and a woman. None of the supporters could tell you a think about her judicial background; on the contrary, they ran from any questions about her record. Because she is black and that's enough. Tell me again which group is more closely aligned with racist behavior.
All true, and well said. But what stands out for me is the implied catch-22 of defining agency as the necessary ingredient for that portion of the population that lacks those values and is disproportionately represented in the statistics. A productive approach, whether you agree with Glenn about American culpability or not, has to therefore center on providing those values. This is traditionally the function of the family but with 70% of black babies born to single mothers the issue then becomes how to replace that family structure. I think the black church is the only institution with the standing to do this, and I hope to see increased involvement in providing education and social services to their community. There is a good bipartisan study by AEI/Brookings recently if anyone is interested in some policy suggestions.
I suspect that those who won't like Glenn's essay will simply have to resort to name calling. I see his essay as a call for action by people of good will. We have massive structural inequities that we've failed to fix. We've got work to do. The kind of work that won't happen under the identity politics umbrella.
If you manage to find an Elect who will talk with you, the conversation goes something like this.
Them: “This nation was founded on white supremacy.”
Me: “So you’re saying white supremacy is this country’s original sin?”
Them quoting Mills: “white supremacy is the unnamed political system that has made the modern world what it is today.”
So Glenn’s question of is the United States a good country, full of opportunity? For Mills, if we assume the answer is yes, this means white supremacy in some way is business as usual. Mills is taking this to criticize the idea Glenn mentions about the vast differences between Nigerians and African Americans, but this argument demonstrates why the term white supremacy is insufficient and reductionist. Perhaps neocolonialism? Postimperialsim? Any suggestions? Does this attempt to layer and contextualize let racism off the hook in a sociological sense?
The Drug War is a festering wound that discredits blacks, the police, guns, and the American project itself. It finances mafias, government corruption, and terrorists. It destabilizes countries and regions, and drives immigration (e.g. more than half of US immigrants on the southern border come from the Northern Triangle). It is a hugely expensive waste of taxes. What's curious is how both the left and right avert their gaze from the issue. That avoidance itself deserves attention.
They just put my friend and I in university commons, do u think theyou re gonna swap us out again since we re freshmen or does it matter?. my first earnings at sports betting with cryptocurrency - https://tinyurl.com/3fbhv4ts
Dr. Loury - I may be wrong on this, but I believe the two sides of the debate can be summarized by the following dichotomies as it relates to power:
a) Collectivism vs Individualism
b) Shame/Guilt vs Order/Force
c) Entitlement vs Accountability
d) Nurture vs Nature
You can see where this is going. Current demographic shifts are creating a power vacuum and those that harbor collectivist beliefs feel entitled to use shame and guilt to seize it. Why? I believe (without data) that their belief in their ability to nurture enables them to govern/distribute resources better, because they are in touch with how people feel. Right now, things are not fair and they are going to fix it. (In their eyes)
Identity is used as proxy to stoke historical grievances in an effort to lay claim to resources one does not have. This creates resentment which is transformed into entitlement.
"Have you or your [group identity] had any "L's in life? It is not your fault. THEY owe you and let US fix it for you. Get in line and we are going to get what is ours."
It is a very powerful message. It absolves the individual of any accountability while simultaneously providing claims to present day resources earned by past aggrievances.
AND guess who is the Paymaster when redistribution occurs? You got it, the elites who have infiltrated and disrupted institutions they erroneously believe caused inequality in the first place. It is a genius strategy as it plays heavily on emotions, especially the youth. It causes those seeking resources to align with this group. Those that have resources and are easily misinformed are now questioning their beliefs and feel compelled to transfer resources out of guilt. [For Now] Force them to? Watch out.
Here is the danger.
For the alleged oppressed: Lack of incentive and accountability:
" Since I am entitled to resources that were obtained by those currently holding them, then why should I put forth any effort into improving my personal lot in life?"
For the alleged sympathetic oppressors: Guilt will be transformed into apathy.
"Enough is enough; we are tired. We've given enough. No more resources"
For the accused oppressor: Fear and silence first, then rage.
"You call me a racist, okay. Now I can't call my child a boy or girl? It's ON".
The unintended consequences are real. Why would one support, collaborate, listen to or work with those with a collective mindset when they are going to take resources away from those that have them and make them feel bad about it to boot? The best unintended consequence is additional loopholes in the tax code to get out of paying for shame driven resource redistribution. The worst, well, we know what that is and it will make January 6 look like a Vaudeville Show.
The oppressed suffer as well because their entitlement will turn into rage which will turn into an exactment of revenge on the alleged oppressor. The "mindshare" of the disenfranchised group will shift from "how can I contribute?" to "they owe me and I will get my fair share by any means necessary". Right now, words are there weapons. [For Now]
It doesn't have to come to this, but we are already headed down that path. Thank God you are here, Dr. Loury. You are a rational interventionalist (p.c. for WokeBuster) preventing us from getting to the point of no return. I applaud your courage in speaking up about this. A real life example of a solutions oriented approach. We need more of you and I will gladly be a soldier in your army, where do I sign up?
Thank you for all you are doing and keep up the good work.
BRAVO!!!!
BRAVO!!!!
Thank you Mr. Loury. Thank you for so generously giving your mind and voice to the most critical issues facing our country today. Thank you.
"Rather, we have to earn equal status by dint of our own efforts." - G.Loury
There comes a time when one develops a 'deaf ear' when it comes to folks who beg for stuff but won't put the time into 'doing the work' - ironically, a phrase used by woke Progressives today. DO THE WORK.
At some point it will become necessary for people to express these views rather than be silent for fear or consequence. Social Justice has "had the floor" for long enough and it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's regressive.
Is there a video of this address to the AEI?
Great essay...
Ok. I agree with Glenn (in general) that problems are created, and neglected, by exaggerating “systemic” racism. However, you would never know from his speech — or from his podcasts — that the United States has serious problems that affect everybody, black, white, brown, green.
Among them:
Grotesque inequality, with an unproductive concentration of wealth at the top.
Inadequate healthcare and limited coverage compared with other advanced countries. Troubled and overburdened schools.
An increasingly rent-based economy with a declining manufacturing sector.
Enormous drug addiction and mental health problems. Crumbling infrastructure (a big bill has been passed but that doesn’t mean it’s not a problem any more).
Of course, the very VERY serious problem of climate change.
And a political system that is corrupt, unbalanced and unrepresentative.
Each one of these problems exacerbates racial disparities and tensions.
I don’t know if Glenn thinks the market solves everything. But one can’t pretend these problems don’t exist. Especially if you’re into facing reality.
Like most, if not all, other causes, race has degenerated into a racket. It is very easy to imagine this very speech being given by a future Glenn 50 years from now, because perpetuating racism, or the idea of racism, is advantageous to a great many people. It helps those people sell books, it gives them political power, it puts them on a media platform. They have no incentive to listen to, let alone agree, with anything in this speech and every incentive to do the opposite.
This is how activism works. Its role is not to solve issues; it is to perpetuate them for as long as possible. The idea that life for minorities today is unchanged from, say, the 1940s is patently offensive and also insulting to the people who lived in those times. When a person who has no concept of what it was like to live in the "colored only" era acts as if life is unchanged, that person's attempt at drawing equivalency between now and then deserves ridicule, not head-nodding.
The word "racism" itself has been cheapened to the point of being worthless. This was most recently evidenced by the SCOTUS nomination hearings for Ms. Jackson, during which we were told that the only possible opposition was based on skin color. This fails, epically, on two counts: first, many of the people making that declaration were around for the Kavanaugh hearings, when a white man was accused of being a serial rapist with zero evidence. Second, the support for Ms. Jackson was based in large part on her being black and a woman. None of the supporters could tell you a think about her judicial background; on the contrary, they ran from any questions about her record. Because she is black and that's enough. Tell me again which group is more closely aligned with racist behavior.
Yet so many white people (also many people of color) need this dysfunctional racial world to continue.
Without it, Who or what would expiate white guilt?
All true, and well said. But what stands out for me is the implied catch-22 of defining agency as the necessary ingredient for that portion of the population that lacks those values and is disproportionately represented in the statistics. A productive approach, whether you agree with Glenn about American culpability or not, has to therefore center on providing those values. This is traditionally the function of the family but with 70% of black babies born to single mothers the issue then becomes how to replace that family structure. I think the black church is the only institution with the standing to do this, and I hope to see increased involvement in providing education and social services to their community. There is a good bipartisan study by AEI/Brookings recently if anyone is interested in some policy suggestions.
I suspect that those who won't like Glenn's essay will simply have to resort to name calling. I see his essay as a call for action by people of good will. We have massive structural inequities that we've failed to fix. We've got work to do. The kind of work that won't happen under the identity politics umbrella.
If you manage to find an Elect who will talk with you, the conversation goes something like this.
Them: “This nation was founded on white supremacy.”
Me: “So you’re saying white supremacy is this country’s original sin?”
Them quoting Mills: “white supremacy is the unnamed political system that has made the modern world what it is today.”
So Glenn’s question of is the United States a good country, full of opportunity? For Mills, if we assume the answer is yes, this means white supremacy in some way is business as usual. Mills is taking this to criticize the idea Glenn mentions about the vast differences between Nigerians and African Americans, but this argument demonstrates why the term white supremacy is insufficient and reductionist. Perhaps neocolonialism? Postimperialsim? Any suggestions? Does this attempt to layer and contextualize let racism off the hook in a sociological sense?
The Drug War is a festering wound that discredits blacks, the police, guns, and the American project itself. It finances mafias, government corruption, and terrorists. It destabilizes countries and regions, and drives immigration (e.g. more than half of US immigrants on the southern border come from the Northern Triangle). It is a hugely expensive waste of taxes. What's curious is how both the left and right avert their gaze from the issue. That avoidance itself deserves attention.