It’s a mighty fine day when you wake up to high praise from a man of Glenn Loury’s caliber — twice! He once called my writing “brilliant,” was “honored by it,” and “blown away” by my site and signed up.
I’d like to think that’d at least give me a little credibility with his supporters.
I’d like to think a lot of things.
That was then . . . this is now:
And they already belonged to one before that!
Alas, we live in a world that would rather split hairs over semantics than consider the spirit of an argument. Whether or not it’s literally “religion” is not the point — it’s faith-based belief that has no bearing on reality:
a.k.a. Wishful Thinking
There was a time when newfangled ways of “argument” wasn’t all the rage — where you furiously fire off some fashionable form of “You’re wrong!” and dish it all day long: Insisting upon “affirmation independent of all findings” (borrowing from Peck who borrowed from Buber).
I don’t roll that way. You’re wrong — and here’s why! That’s the discipline — to have a work ethic in the way you think. Without “here’s why,” you’re just whistlin’ Dixie.
Case in point:
I KNOW . . .
That you know the answer to this question:
The banner image above is all you need to answer the question in the title, and the more you look — the worse it gets (and not just on Sowell). The story I’m out to tell takes both parties to task on the biggest & most costly lie in modern history — along with some other issues at the core of America’s decline.
Sowell is simply a conduit through which to tell that story.
And how his role within it could be harnessed for good. Compelling him to admit where he’s wrong will work wonders for where he’s right. It’s the kind of thing that someone looking to “expand that aperture, to learn about the world from outside ourselves, learning more, knowing more” — and being open to change: Would be willing to consider!
By the way:
Assuming bad motives is in gross breach of the very principles upon which Sowell is put on a pedestal. Not to mention how his disciples defend the indefensible by issuing rapid-fire ridicule for satisfaction in full. Sowell’s a well-mannered guy and these people act like animals to honor him.
Just what would it take for you to do what you say you do?
Alas, Loury had no such notion when I took his hero to task. Like Sowell’s army of acolytes marching in lockstep in the Facts Over Feelings Parade: Those precious virtues you peddle are rolled right over with your feelings. Virtually 100% of Sowell’s followers refuse to look at the bigger picture or even a single frame of it.
Never mind that the following image alone is enough to know that something’s not right: Not to mention the most obvious answer imaginable on “Which ones strike you as glib?”
Following Facts Where They Lead
“Said so and so”? . . . that’s one helluva trip you took there, Mr. Sowell.
Stirring Defense!
Old information at the beginning of the sentence, new information at the end.
— Steven Pinker
How do you feel about no new information — anywhere?
What happened to all this jazz?
In what parallel universe does this even remotely reflect anything like that:
A couple of 2-minute reads that never even mention the tubes that took us to war (or anything else of substance on this endless saga of absurdity). Touting technicalities as “facts” doesn’t get it done: Especially when you make a living selling slogans and catchy quotes about careful consideration. If you only apply the principles you preach when it serves your interests — they’re just empty claims on a cup and a meaningless mantra touted on a T-shirt.
As in — not this:
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
You confine his record to a box of beliefs that suit you — and stand by that.
How noble of you!
And I KNOW: That refusing to look at irrefutable evidence of mathematical certainty (on the fiasco for the ages that shaped everything you see today): Is not the mark of someone looking to “expand that aperture, to learn about the world from outside ourselves, learning more, knowing more” — and damn sure not looking to change.
Not to mention that 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.
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?
So, the rules of argument you espouse on a daily basis don’t apply to you and your audience. You called my writing “brilliant” in I Don’t Do Slogans on The Yellow Brick Road — and you’re “blown away” by my site: As long as I don’t challenge you to live up to the principles you preach when it comes at a price.
Got it!
Sowell sold out to sell those books you stand by. And I wrote “Water is Not Wet — And I Stand by That” with the likes of Loury in mind.
At every turn . . .
The faithful tap dance around reality — oily evading anything that requires them to hold Sowell to his own standards.
Hard to Imagine:
That I have to explain that quote to people who seemingly live to flood the internet with his words.
He and his flock incessantly complain about the media — and they don’t make policy. But the second I scrutinize Sowell — suddenly you have new standards.
180 — how fitting!
You introduce statements and arguments of people who aren’t Thomas Sowell
As this story is also . . .
About the behavior of the echo chamber around Sowell — it’s kinda necessary to include other people to properly illustrate the problem. And I wouldn’t mind explaining everything — if you thought about anything.
How do you think Hughes would handle his hero flagrantly ignoring stories and data (on the most concrete evidence imaginable, no less)? A helluva lot better than the savagery I’ve seen — no doubt. But would he abide by that pledge he signed just like Loury?
[T]he basic premise of Black Lives Matter — that racist cops are killing unarmed black people—is false. There was a time when I believed it. . . . . My opinion has slowly changed. . . .
Two things changed my mind: stories and data.
— Stories and Data: Reflections on race, riots, and police
“Stories and data”?
Or just stories and data that swiftly serve a market?
Because this sure looks a lot like stories and data to me:
Loury wasn’t about to look at undeniable evidence warranting that he change his mind:
So he changed the rules . . .
Right on cue | Never fails
Living up to his hero who did the same:
Such high praise from Loury is a helluva lot of incentive for me to think these people are the “geniuses” their ever-growing audience thinks they are. I don’t roll that way. While I maintain a degree of respect for him — and I’m forever grateful for the inspiration he provided:
If you’re part of the problem, I don’t care who you are — I’m calling you out!
And that’s . . .
I believe in applying the same rules to everyone . . . I seek to treat everyone equally . . . I am open-minded . . I seek to understand . . . I pursue the objective truth through honest inquiry.
— F.A.I.R’s Pro-Human Pledge
Cognitive dissonance doesn’t care that you signed a pledge:
And neither did Loury!
“It was time to take stock”
“The Civil Rights Movement is over” — in 1984!
That — took guts!
And that — is the Loury I was looking for. You said they had no argument against your [R]ebuttal to Brown University’s letter on racism in the United States. Neither do you on your “National Treasure.” Instead of listening and learning on things you know nothing about — you let pride consume you. Maybe you don’t know Sowell as well as you thought you did, and heaven forbid you hold him to the same standards pushing your popularity.
You asked them to take stock — just don’t ask you.
Not only did Sowell flagrantly fail to follow the facts on all-things Iraq — he brazenly ignored the debauchery in his own party to politely pounce on the other. And yet somehow his patently obvious history of hypocrisy has gone unnoticed for decades by people heaping praise upon him.
There’s a thing about Sowell that isn’t often mentioned . . . he can step completely outside of the race thing and just express himself about just stuff — which is not the usual.
And I find it interesting that with Sowell — one reason some people today would find it hard to go with him is that he doesn’t write with that tribalist sense.
Weapons of Crass Obstruction
Sowell has a habit of headlines oozing in partisan pettiness. On two of the biggest events in history — Sowell seems pretty tribal to me:
He’s trying to be purely objective and there’s nothing in him of — here’s what we down here think. Here’s what we’ve been through.
Desperate and Ugly in Florida
Weapons of Political Destruction
It’s not seasoned with any of that — he’s just trying to have a white lab coat on and look at the facts.
— John McWhorter
If his Crap is King claims on WMD isn’t “seasoned” to you, Mr. McWhorter:
What is?
Hard to Imagine
And Damn Disappointing to Boot
It’s bad enough I gotta deal with unyielding yahoos who yearn to praise Sowell as if it’s a daily duty to broadcast his brilliance — while butchering his principles in practice: But to see people I respected fall into the same trap — enabling their “National Treasure” and the echo chamber around him:
Good grief!
Even in the most unsophisticated years of my youth, I would have never bought something so impossibly simplistic as Sowell’s “said so and so” — and the Right’s ubiquitous belief that “everybody believed Iraq had WMD.”
My mind would never allow me to accept something so easily (thank God).
I don’t know how people find the path of least resistance so satisfying — as I love the demands of difficulty and discernment. To not step up my game in the midst of opportunity or challenge — would be tantamount to treason upon my very existence.
Sowell’s disciples have no interest in such a demanding way of life — as defending the faith is all that matters in the religious-like following around Sowell. They spread the gospel by mindlessly countering with boilerplate beliefs that have no bearing on the issues in question.
If only you’d laid it all out exactly as I like it — then I’d abide by the principles I preach
Is that how it works?
That’s about the size of it. I guess I figured that if you didn’t understand something — you’d try this on for size, but I’m old-fashioned that way:
Einstein borrowed from the one below:
The worth of man lies not in the truth which he possesses, or believes that he possesses, but in the honest endeavor which he puts forth to secure that truth; for not by the possession of, but by the search after, truth, are his powers enlarged, wherein, alone, consists his ever-increasing perfection. Possession fosters content, indolence, and pride.
— Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
If only Loury had listened instead of clinging to possession — what wonders he could have worked with what I have in mind. While you should not need an incentive to do what’s right and abide by your own standards: Whatever he’s making on that book . . .
Would be pennies on the dollar had he heard me out on my idea and ran with it.
All ya gotta do — is do what you say you do. And my idea is a framework for debate that boxes you in to do exactly that. You won’t like it — but here’s the deal: Your opposition won’t either. And who knows, you might learn to love embracing challenge, changing your mind, and the fruits from demanding across-the-board accountability.
This — is not that . . .
This is Broadcasting Beliefs About That
If you want to rebut an argument you disagree with, you have to understand it first.
Unbelievable! . . .
Not to mention . . .
That you and your crowd are cultivating a cesspool of sycophants who sling ad hominem as if it were virtue (never rising above anything beyond level 3 below):
As they wallow at the bottom of the barrel in their binary beliefs.
It would be nice if we lived in a world where facts determined our shared view of reality.
It would be nice if you challenged your audience instead of catering to their cravings — so you could clean up this shithole they call home:
“Possession fosters content, indolence, and pride.”
That is Possession — and then some!
What works with them would never fly with me.
If you oversimplify an issue that clearly calls for careful examination, I know you’re hiding something. If you constantly complain about the other side and defend your own at every turn — you’re not playing by the rules you rail on others for failing to follow. Occasional criticism of your own party doesn’t qualify as having a history faithful to objective scrutiny.
And that — is the legacy Sowell’s leaving behind . . .
Right along with this:
Indeed, nowadays, we tend to take in and repeat whatever the values and beliefs of those around us have rather than forming our own independent thought and stopping to organize and evaluate the information we are receiving.
— Ann Baker, Critical Thinking: A fading skill in the age of information overload
“Fading”? In our Age of Unenlightenment — that’s an understatement for the ages. That America’s makes it impossible to have a conversation on the most concrete evidence imaginable — embodies how far off the rails this nation has gone.
That requires this . . .
stopping to organize and evaluate the information we are receiving.
And these are on the mild end of the savagery I’ve seen:
You couldn’t carry Sowell’s jockstrap!
Seriously? Get a life. It doesn’t matter what you say, he’s better than you basically in everything.
You deserved to be treated that way! You’re a moron and pathetic character assassin
Holy shit…. a video of a circle jerks with a nut in the center talking about RPMS. Yet somehow Thomas Sowell is a liar.
How do you reconcile that with this?
About that wishful thinking:
It’s the same wishful thinking that’s utterly oblivious to the counterproductive nature of endlessly beating issues into the ground in entirely transactional tactics. Repeatedly rehashing issues is not the mark of problem solving: It’s the mark of a market. All these channels are blunt instruments (including those I agree with).
Like Black Lives Matter, you’re just pounding away at problems without any examination of the efficacy of your efforts.
But why bother when failure is a pretty profitable enterprise these days? Then again, do these people really wanna solves problems anyway? Do you? As Theodore Dalrymple so perfectly put it in Life at the Bottom:
Man is at least as much a problem-creating as a problem-solving animal. Better a crisis than the permanent boredom of meaninglessness.
Life at the Bottom — how fitting! . . .
What does it say to you that across communities where claims of critical thinking are everywhere — I haven’t found it anywhere? It’s become a pastime for people to take endless delight in advertising their immaculate critical thinking skills. But the second they’re challenged on anything that is even perceived as threatening their interests:
Don’t do any of this . . .
Does that look anything like this:
As any proper scientist can explain to you, there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence OR mathematical certainty
Well, since I interviewed a world-renowned nuclear scientist (on a topic you have yet to even acknowledge): Perhaps we should discuss what HE said (as among the world’s preeminent experts on uranium enrichment).
Instead of “any proper scientist” as the arbiter of truth?
[Critical thinking] encompasses far more than mere information gathering. It also includes knowing where to look and continuing the search without prejudice about what we may find.
- An attitude that always favors one way of feeling or acting especially without considering any other possibilities
- An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts
- The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions
- A partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation
Which means all of America is prejudiced by definition:
Just as Loury was the day I took his hero to task (along with every apologist who’s treated me with contempt for 20 years on this topic). Never mind it’s a matter of mathematical certainty (on the fiasco for the ages that shaped everything you see today).
As a distinguished scholar once said: “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.”
— Thomas Sowell
The man’s a magician:
As I’m practically spit on by people promoting principles I followed to find he didn’t. Simply by virtue of writing those words, he couldn’t possibly do the same in service of his own ideals? And lo and behold — sleight of hand is how they pulled it off.
When you have absolutely no idea what’s going on here, on what basis are you so doubt-free?
Not the tiniest trace of reasoning or molecule of courtesy can be found in anything I’ve come across in decades of dealing with the doubt-free on WMD. And of all those I’ve challenged — their knowledge combined could fit into a thimble with space to spare.
First time I ever heard of John McWhorter was in a 2017 interview. In talking about take a wild guess, he said, “He has a rather narcotic joy in dismissal and belittlement.”
A lot of that goin’ around!
And the likes of Loury & McWhorter are fueling that frenzy:
Unwittingly producing a toxicity of venom I hope they’d find sickening if they realized what they were doing. I’m not suggesting they stop — I’m suggesting they reframe the debate by broadening it. It’s the kind of thing that takes actual critical thinking to understand:
Broadcasting your abilities doesn’t count.
[T]here could be no country that makes less use of the accumulated experience of those who have served it – none that is more frivolously neglectful and improvident of these assets – than the United States of America.
— George F. Kennan, Around the Cragged Hill
Look around!
