Try reasoning with the likes of Loury, McWhorter, Hughes -- or anyone blindly loyal to Thomas Sowell, and see how far you get. Back to that in a bit.
McWhorter's right about calling anti-racism a religion -- but what these guys don't get, is that their battle against that religion, has become religion itself. Endlessly talking about these issues isn't gonna solve anything.
Moreover, it's actually making matters worse -- as it's just fodder for the Right to frame the narrative while brazenly ignoring the debauchery of their own behavior.
The Left institutionalizes weakness — and the Democratic Party is notorious for lacking backbone. All this ludicrous lingo and ever-expanding acronyms . . .
You are utterly oblivious to the fact that you are weakening the very people you're trying to strengthen -- and branding weakness to boot. And right on cue, the Right kicks the sh*t out of you for it. I don’t blame ’em — except for the part about them being weak while branding strength.
The ever-increasing attention that Glenn & the Gang are getting -- is an illusion of impact. They're blinded by the same metrics of progress that Black Lives Matter uses -- subscribers, attention, funding, etc. As I told a BLM supporter: "7 years of Black Lives Matter and the increasing level of attention is the first thing that comes to mind as a measure of success?"
The religion of anti-racism the Left's ridiculous woke ways -- are just factions of folly in a society full of it. It's impossible to solve a problem like that when the very people trying to solve it -- are part of the same problem (they're just another brand of it).
Why should the Left listen to the Right when it has no credibility? I'm not saying they shouldn't -- I'm saying I know why they don't. For me, what's true is true -- regardless of the source. But I'm in the infinitesimal minority on that.
Those blindly loyal to Thomas Sowell -- have no such notion about the truth when it comes to defending their "National Treasure." On the biggest and most costly lie in modern history, this man is a liar and a hypocrite -- and I can demonstrably prove it.
By their own "standards" (and his) -- they would consider my case on the merits (not on their loyalty to Thomas Sowell). But apologists don't roll that way -- they will abandon their "principles" in a heartbeat to defend their position purely on faith.
Glenn Loury once called my writing "brilliant" and was "blown away" by my site and signed up. But when I took his hero to task, he didn't think too highly of it—as Tolstoy’s truth kicked in:
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
Loury made a mockery of his standards in his amateurish defense of Sowell. When you see a sentence like “Not a trace of Thomas Sowell’s ‘follow the facts’ claim to fame can be found on the most world-altering topic of our time.” . . .
“I have no idea what you’re talking about” is not the mark of an intellectual giant (or an intellectual on any level).
"Sowell is a great man because of his books. I stand by that. you want to refute his books — go ahead. I’m listening." — Glenn Loury
Oh, I see — you wanna confine his record to a box of beliefs that suit you, and ignore anything that doesn’t. So the rules of argument you espouse on a daily basis don’t apply to you . . .
A lot of that goin’ around!
"I have no idea what you’re talking about . . ." What part of “WMD,” “biggest and most costly lie in modern history,” and “most world-altering topic of our time” — do you not understand?
Perhaps an inquiry or two for clarification was in order?
What happened to “looking at the deep questions”? . . .
"We’re a university. We should be above whatever the fad or the fashion is of any given day. We should be looking at the deep questions. We should be analytical. We should be emphasizing reason. Instead, it was like a kind of emotional rush — in which . . . the president and provost and the top leadership of my university — wanted to jump on a bandwagon. They wanted to wave a banner." -- Glenn Loury (on Tucker Carlson today -- referring to George Floyd)
These guys are not asking the deep questions -- but I am.
The series on Sowell below -- is the culmination of my efforts on this topic. Part III and IV to follow soon.
You may think I'm out to bring Sowell down -- but it's the exact opposite. Believe it or not, my aim is to make him the catalyst who could turn the tide. But in order to do that, I gotta take him to task for his reprehensible record on Iraq WMD.
I've got a plan. It's complicated -- but only because human nature makes it that way:
Try reasoning with the likes of Loury, McWhorter, Hughes -- or anyone blindly loyal to Thomas Sowell, and see how far you get. Back to that in a bit.
McWhorter's right about calling anti-racism a religion -- but what these guys don't get, is that their battle against that religion, has become religion itself. Endlessly talking about these issues isn't gonna solve anything.
Moreover, it's actually making matters worse -- as it's just fodder for the Right to frame the narrative while brazenly ignoring the debauchery of their own behavior.
The Left institutionalizes weakness — and the Democratic Party is notorious for lacking backbone. All this ludicrous lingo and ever-expanding acronyms . . .
You are utterly oblivious to the fact that you are weakening the very people you're trying to strengthen -- and branding weakness to boot. And right on cue, the Right kicks the sh*t out of you for it. I don’t blame ’em — except for the part about them being weak while branding strength.
The ever-increasing attention that Glenn & the Gang are getting -- is an illusion of impact. They're blinded by the same metrics of progress that Black Lives Matter uses -- subscribers, attention, funding, etc. As I told a BLM supporter: "7 years of Black Lives Matter and the increasing level of attention is the first thing that comes to mind as a measure of success?"
The religion of anti-racism the Left's ridiculous woke ways -- are just factions of folly in a society full of it. It's impossible to solve a problem like that when the very people trying to solve it -- are part of the same problem (they're just another brand of it).
Why should the Left listen to the Right when it has no credibility? I'm not saying they shouldn't -- I'm saying I know why they don't. For me, what's true is true -- regardless of the source. But I'm in the infinitesimal minority on that.
Those blindly loyal to Thomas Sowell -- have no such notion about the truth when it comes to defending their "National Treasure." On the biggest and most costly lie in modern history, this man is a liar and a hypocrite -- and I can demonstrably prove it.
By their own "standards" (and his) -- they would consider my case on the merits (not on their loyalty to Thomas Sowell). But apologists don't roll that way -- they will abandon their "principles" in a heartbeat to defend their position purely on faith.
Glenn Loury once called my writing "brilliant" and was "blown away" by my site and signed up. But when I took his hero to task, he didn't think too highly of it—as Tolstoy’s truth kicked in:
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
Loury made a mockery of his standards in his amateurish defense of Sowell. When you see a sentence like “Not a trace of Thomas Sowell’s ‘follow the facts’ claim to fame can be found on the most world-altering topic of our time.” . . .
“I have no idea what you’re talking about” is not the mark of an intellectual giant (or an intellectual on any level).
"Sowell is a great man because of his books. I stand by that. you want to refute his books — go ahead. I’m listening." — Glenn Loury
Oh, I see — you wanna confine his record to a box of beliefs that suit you, and ignore anything that doesn’t. So the rules of argument you espouse on a daily basis don’t apply to you . . .
A lot of that goin’ around!
"I have no idea what you’re talking about . . ." What part of “WMD,” “biggest and most costly lie in modern history,” and “most world-altering topic of our time” — do you not understand?
Perhaps an inquiry or two for clarification was in order?
What happened to “looking at the deep questions”? . . .
"We’re a university. We should be above whatever the fad or the fashion is of any given day. We should be looking at the deep questions. We should be analytical. We should be emphasizing reason. Instead, it was like a kind of emotional rush — in which . . . the president and provost and the top leadership of my university — wanted to jump on a bandwagon. They wanted to wave a banner." -- Glenn Loury (on Tucker Carlson today -- referring to George Floyd)
These guys are not asking the deep questions -- but I am.
The series on Sowell below -- is the culmination of my efforts on this topic. Part III and IV to follow soon.
You may think I'm out to bring Sowell down -- but it's the exact opposite. Believe it or not, my aim is to make him the catalyst who could turn the tide. But in order to do that, I gotta take him to task for his reprehensible record on Iraq WMD.
I've got a plan. It's complicated -- but only because human nature makes it that way:
Behold the Legacy of Your Beloved Sowell: Part I
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/12/07/behold-the-legacy-of-your-beloved-sowell-part-i/
Behold the Legacy of Your Beloved Sowell: Part II
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/12/12/behold-the-legacy-of-your-beloved-sowell-part-ii/