The Second Coming | Glenn Loury & John McWhorter [The Glenn Show]

0:44 John on his recent controversial Glenn Show appearance
5:32 Glenn reacts to seeing Hamilton on Broadway
17:03 What’s the future of heterodox black thought?
31:23 Assessing the effect of Black Lives Matter
34:35 Will race always be a central part of black people’s self-conceptions?
43:52 Glenn foretells the end of identity politics
Glenn Loury (Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University) and John McWhorter (Columbia University, Lexicon Valley, The Atlantic)
Recorded November 23, 2018
Join the conversation on Bloggingheads.tv:
bloggingheads.t...
Subscribe to the Bloggingheads.tv KZbin channel: goo.gl/ccLFDY
Follow us on Twitter: / bloggingheads
Like us on Facebook: / bloggingheads
Subscribe to our podcast feeds: bloggingheads....

[@furyofbongos]

I'm so sorry, but I just can't take the audio as much as I love these guys.

[@TimMcGuinessCom]

I love listening to John even when he is wrong :) I didn't have a problem with his opinion, just his certainty.

[@nichtsistkostenlos6565]

Exactly my position. If you can claim with any level of certainty that you know what occurred between Kavanaugh and Ford 30+ years ago, you're deluding yourself. Based on the small amount of knowledge that I've been privy to surrounding the scientific study of memory, I don't even trust that either of the parties involved knows precisely what happened or could even convey it any sort of unbiased way. I have no problem with John representing what he wants to believe, but to make truth claims as strongly as he was, even embellished ones, I found to be pretty disconcerting.

[@jtzoltan]

I'd have to re-watch that episode to see if John's reflection on it rings true. I remember it seemed to me that he made some really strong, over-reaching statements and I don't remember any context beforehand that modified the meaning to imply that "it wasn't his reasoned position on it, but his intuition" or something to that effect, nor do I remember Glen reacting at the time as though John was only saying he felt it likely that Kavannaugh was guilty. It seemed as though John was saying that it was reasonable and perhaps correct to conclude that Kavannaugh was guilty based on Ford's testimony. I feel a bit gaslit by this rehash of his, though I have respect enough for John to rewatch that episode in light of his explanation and to accept that his statement now better reflects his reasoned position. I don't much appreciate him acting like the audience was out of line for interpreting his words as they (we) did, but I also didn't read many comments at the time to feel the extent of the reaction it generated. It's water under the bridge. I like John and continue to like John; you have to give pleanty of room to people to disagree with you and still have your regard. Everybody has their quirks and absurdities from the perspective of everybody else.

[@bronxkies]

@@nichtsistkostenlos6565 my sentiment as well. His certainty and "gut" seems to be based more so on a stereotype than any evidence at all. He's just certain that Kavanaugh fits a "dude" kind of stereotype. It's almost like racial profiling.

[@jtzoltan]

@@nichtsistkostenlos6565 Didn't he claim in this video that based on the statements he made leading up to his comment that we should have known that he was speaking from the gut and not from his reason? I thought that was a stretch, but I owe it to him to rewatch what he had said. I mean, he could have clarified his position when Glen vehemently pushed back on him on grounds similar to what you've written here, Nichtsis. I don't quite buy what John is selling in this video

[@jtzoltan]

@@bronxkies absolutely, well said.

[@jordanzimmerman7590]

re: Kavanaugh, John. Yes you are a reasonable person in general but that doesn't mean every utterance you make is reasonable. To say that you think he's guilty of the accusations with only one shred of evidence and a mountain of disconfirming evidence is to display a lack of reasonableness in this instance. The truth is you think he's guilty for no good reason.

[@StrategicWealthLLC]

Jordan Zimmerman - Agree. John can “believe” Kavenaugh is guilty, but he cannot “know.”

[@Hannah-tg8hw]

The world continues to turn. He’s entitled to an opinion.

[@StrategicWealthLLC]

Hannah A. Gehrels - He is. I respect John. On this issue though, I believe him to be wrong linguistically and based on the merits of the case.

[@mrRambleGamble]

@@Hannah-tg8hw Yes, he's an entitled to an opinion, but what makes this show great is that they accept the responsibility to explore, clarify, explain, and update their opinions. The former, without the latter, is just everyday punditry.

[@davidfranklin5434]

On the positive side, Glenn fixed his earphones. On the negative side, the audio is consequently abysmal.

[@alexg4150]

"Problematic" is the new "blasphemous," goddamnit I love John. Been trying to put my finger on exactly why I hated that word for a while now.

[@AW-cf7np]

Loved your guys' appearance on the Fifth Column Podcast

[@ChollieD]

FIX YOUR AUDIO, BOOMERS! Two PhD's and not a single care for presentation quality between the two of you. _Damn..._

[@ChollieD]

@nande230231 Nobody has to reorganize their lives for a $25 microphone, and both of them can afford it. www.amazon.com/Professional-Microphone-Omnidirectional-Recording-Conference/dp/B01AG56HYQ

[@DefSquadFan]

McWhorter is a Gen X'er.

[@ChollieD]

@@DefSquadFan So am I. "Boomers" is slang for low-tech, low-fi incompetence on the internet. Because, y'know, Boomers don't always use technology very well.

[@danielpederson1630]

Buck up!

[@delailama736]

Don't listen. I prefer it, it's more real.

[@BarbaPamino]

At least he's not doubling down. But a lot of the backlash had to do with so many on the left being so sure that Kavanaugh was guilty, and John piled on the same way. Timing was everything.

[@holyworrier]

He was never proven to be guilty or innocent. Therefore a judgment of guilt is just as good as a judgment of innocence.

[@BarbaPamino]

@@holyworrier maybe in Nazi Germany or the Ottoman Empire when a 2nd class citizen is a accused of something the accusation alone means enough. But in the modern western world you absolutely have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before guilt should be assumed. And the fact that you can't accept that is absurd. You deserve every aspect of the authoritarian dictatorship you desire.

[@anarchojaegerist8453]

@@BarbaPamino The standard of beyond a reasonable doubt applies only to criminal courts, because we're pretty much depriving a person of nearly every freedom by locking them up. Bear in mind that I don't agree with the other commenter either, and I don't think that just because it's not a criminal court, we should automatically assume he's guilty and believe all women no matter what. He did perjure himself though. A lot of his statements simply didn't line up with both his own calendar, and statements from other witnesses including Mark Judge.

[@BarbaPamino]

@@anarchojaegerist8453 I understand the difference between criminal court and public opinion. But the words innocent, guilty, and now perjury are being used, and those are related to crimes and require proof beyond reasonable doubt. But furthermore, in any aspect of my personal life anyone I know needs much more than simply an accusation against them for me to judge them as a sex assault perpetrator. If my wife is accused of cheating on me 25 years ago by someone that cannot provide a specific date, location, or witness that claims to have seen my wife with him, then I don't need my wife to prove to me she wasn't at this unnamed place on this unnamed day, and people that claim to have never met her didn't see her. It's absurd and the fact that the Ford's claim ever made it to a hearing is just as absurd. Also, I saw the same hearing you saw and I didn't see proof of lies. The idea of perjury is insane. To think anyone could recollect anything at random a specific time and day and detail from 1982 is absurd. He may have remembered something wrong. But to call it perjury would require evidence to suggest that he must have known to be lieing. I'm all ears though if you give me a specific example.

[@holyworrier]

@@BarbaPamino - I will have my opinion - my judgment - on this matter, tho it carries no weight. Just as John has his opinion. Do you take notice of, or even understand the concept of, context?

[@mrRambleGamble]

At one point during the Kavanaugh episode, I thought John's take was satirical. I really expected him to say it was a satire at the beginning of this episode. To respond with indignation/"I am disappointed in my audience for trusting their lying ears" compounds it and makes it worse. Something happened, I don't remember John started talking down to people before. Last episode, he was calling people guilty and others morons. He made no attempt to see them as people. Even if Kanye's message is clumsy and non-intellectual -- a lot of people are clumsy and non-intellectual. We have to share the country with them! Their votes, and therefore their ideas, carry as much weight as ours. And the first few minutes in this episode is an example of the clash of esoteric expert knowledge versus common sense going on in culture these days. He was bombastic, and even Glenn was pushing back in the podcast, but now he's trying to sidestep valid criticism. It's pathetic to sidestep like a politician when a fundamental part of the appeal is that he's been willing to speak clearly about issues others try to ignore. That was a weird one John, but whatever. Overall, I enjoy the conversations

[@wowomah6194]

Ohhhh Glenn, you wouldn't believe the story I've got for you then about Asian achievement level and cries about white supremacy. I was in an Economics course in college just a few years ago related to current events Economics issues so that we could learn how to speak and write about Economics issues with our newfound knowledge. The professor one day brought a graph up on the screen showing median household income grouped by race. As we know, Asians as a group were on top even out earning white families (whom most people not well versed in such issues would have assumed would be at the top). The professor asked us all why that might be: why are Asians doing so well comparatively? One female student exclaimed, "Well it's white supremacy! It's because of old white stereotypes that Asians are smarter and better at math and so they put them in positions that happen to be high paying". I couldn't believe the words that came out of her mouth. The professor, trying to, perhaps rightfuly, be neutral and just foster good discussion nodded along and said, "Ok, ok, anybody else?". The room was silent but the mood was very, very tense. As we all can imagine, people are incredibly uncomfortable when discussing race. I raised my hand and said, baffled, "Are we really just going to conclude that Asians earn more because of white supremacy? Isn't that contradictory?". My peer look infuriated that I would dare question such a thing and I should have known better than to thrust my professor into such an uncomfortable position. My professor's only response to me was a silent, "Uhhhhhhhh...." with an added shrug as if to suggest, "I'm going to stay silent cause my ass is on the line here...". People simply don't know how to grapple with the fact that Asian represent a monkey-wrench in the game of identity politics...it just doesn't add up the way that way of thinking says it ought to.

[@pdmayton]

John, I don't recall commenting on the video in question, but I am the type of person whom you are addressing, I think. My response is, to claim "I know" is a factual claim. It can even be thought of as a religious Gnostic claim. You have special knowledge that is deprived to the rest of us. Perhaps this is only a semantics problem, but you chose your words, and if you didn't mean "I know" in a way that is commonly understood, I would caution you to use your words more carefully, or provide clarifying details that you are using some sort of esoteric philosophical definition, or whatever the case may be. I am still confused even after hearing your address of this issue - you seem to want it both ways to me; to claim knowledge and remain a skeptic. I think you've bungled this topic, personally, though I am a fan of yours, generally speaking.

[@bofbob1]

Tbh, to me this is just another manifestation of the root problem behind that whole "PC" thing that people are always complaining about. To conclude that he was making a "religious Gnostic claim", you have to voluntarily ignore everything you know about the man, context, intent (or you have to know nothing about the man and assume that you can infer something about him based on one sentence). He studied the claims and the evidence he had at hand, and came to a conclusion, a conclusion that many of us disagree with. That's all. The rest to me is just virtue signalling. The same way a comedian who by every other standard has been shown to not be racist all the sudden is branded as one because of one joke that is voluntarily misunderstood. And if this comparison bothers you, might I just point out that your conclusion is exactly the same as the PC crowd in every other instance: "use your words more carefully"...

[@pdmayton]

@@bofbob1 On the contrary, I pointed out that it seemed to be akin to a religious Gnostic-like claim specifically because I am familiar with his work. As for his intent, as I said, I am still confused on that point, as he seems to want it both ways. As for his conclusion that Kavanaugh had acted inappropriately, I think many reasonable people could conclude that was likely. BUT - there is a huge difference between concluding something was likely, and having knowledge of it. I find the rest of your response to be...a misunderstanding of my response at best. I was not finger-waving at John because he personally offended me, I was simply advising to use precise language so that he may be understood better.

[@bofbob1]

Well, on the PC thing what I'm arguing (rather poorly apparently) is just that the reactions John got share the same root as PC behavior. I'm not arguing that they're equivalent (and yes, that also means that I'm arguing that the root problem behind PC culture is not "finger-waving" and feeling "offended"). I believe it is a much larger cultural shift towards discharging individual responsibilities onto others ("I only have rights, but no responsibilities" in its most simplistic form). In this case, this manifests itself as people focusing on the responsibility of the speaker (John) and not on the responsibility of the listener (themselves). These responsibilities aren't mutually exclusive, so this is a case where we could conceivably both be right. I'm just pointing out that it says something when we focus on one and not the other.That's what I'm seeing. Saying that his use of "to know" is not "commonly understood" strikes me as a mere rationalization of an opinion that was preformed for other reasons. Or then, I have to seriously reconsider how I've been understanding the world. To give one example among many, if someone says "Oh you know you're gonna get an ass-kicking for that", if apparently the common usage of "to know" is what people are saying here, then I apparently must conclude that when people say that sentence, they're making a claim about being able to see the future... I think it's more likely that people are perfectly comfortable with the shades of grey between knowledge and belief, and perfectly comfortable with the polysemy of some of these verbs, except when there's a situation where they are psychologically "pre-tensioned" to react.

[@pdmayton]

@@bofbob1 I would say I am responsible for understanding to the best of my ability, which I did, and in spite of this, based on the foreword by John, I failed to do so. Not only that, but many others did as well; which is why John felt the need to respond in this video to begin with. That would seem to indicate a failure to articulate your position clearly, not a fault of the listener. Language requires assumptions about meaning of words given the context, circumstance, rhyme, meter, etc. Otherwise there is no such thing as language. If student asks their pupils a question, and one raises their hand and says "I know", there is certainty in that response. That's how the word is used in common parlance. Whereas Descartes may ask what is truly meant by "Know" given the inability for use to be certain of anything other than our own existence.

[@bofbob1]

@Daniel "That's how the word is used in common parlance." It is one of the many ways in which that verb is used in common parlance. If you're limiting it to just this one, then you're excluding a wide array of meanings. Even just, as the example I gave above, "I know" used in the exact same way but followed by future tense which is very common but cannot possibly be expressing the degree of certainty you're attributing to John here. How about "I know" as agreement? etc. etc. "Language requires assumptions about meaning of words given the context, circumstance, rhyme, meter, etc" Most of which are filtered through the mind and therefore subject to being distorted by bias. The numbers won't help you there. If I'm right that it's just a case of people being pre-tensioned to react because of bias, then the entire planet could have that same bias and my point would still stand. The uncomfortable conclusion this leads to is that you end up infantilizing listeners. Since the "best of their ability" doesn't include rooting out any bias they might have, then you end up doing that work for them, and tip-toeing around words to not trigger their defense mechanisms (people do it all the time, they just don't admit it in order to spare our feelings). You're essentially inviting John to infantilize us and treat us with condescension. I'd rather he didn't.

[@fafinaf]

I’m just curious - if you were falsely accused of gang rape wouldn’t you be mad? 3 of those women recanted and a 4th walked back claims.

[@benjaminperez969]

Around 35 min., Loury & McWhorter's discussion reminded me of a debate between Cornel West & Jorge Klor de Alva, first published in Harper's Magazine (1996), titled, "Our Next Race Question: The Uneasiness Between Blacks & Latinos," later published in The Cornel West Read, retitled, "On Black-Brown Relations" (1999). Although a bit dated, the themes covered (e.g., who, if anyone, is "black") & the tensions expressed/exchanged are, arguably, timeless. (Although it seems obvious that Coleman Hughes & Kmele Foster live it, I wonder if either have read it.)

[@prestonstroud3878]

Wow this is wild... Does he think that was z good response? His entire 15 minute take was a bad one. He mentioned specifically a 'certain type of Catholic boy' and he conveniently didn't address that here.

[@psinno]

The sectarian prejudice really sold the argument to me.

[@garywood97]

The only problem John is you said "I know", when you clearly don't. No-one knows. The best we have are hunches and intuitions. But you should know enough about psychology to know how biased those are that we can't really trust them for anything.

[@RobLanderos]

So McWhorter drew upon his cred capital to dismiss legitimate criticism by viewers of his opinion re Ford/Kavanaugh. For any respectable first rate public intellectual, that escape hatch doesn’t cut it.

[@RobLanderos]

It’s great that Glenn and McWhorter remain friendly, but I have no patience or tolerance for intellectual dishonesty and intellectual cowardice.

[@cupcakeofdoom232]

Everyone has made this point so it is nothing new now, but we seriously need to get these two some proper audio equipment. Why Blogging Heads hasn't sent Glenn and John some decent mics is pretty sad, especially since it is clear the Glenn Show ranks as the most viewed series on BH TV.

[@Krazie1nyc]

"You're not black. You're just a person." Thank you. I'm white but I have closer ties to the African continent than most black people in America today. Explain that!

[@briancox2867]

John, I see the "controversy" as stemming from a poor choice of verb on your part. By starting your claim with "I know..." you've transformed an intuitional or evidentiary claim into one that is propositional and epistemological. Unless you were in the room hiding under the bed 30 years ago, or have privileged access to some key facts not available to the rest of us, it doesn't follow that you can evoke the language of knowledge around what took place. Those of us who have chosen the humbler position of withholding judgement in the face so many competing stories and arguments on both sides, would obviously take issue with someone not party to the allegations claiming to have complete certitude as to how it played out, and moreover, in tones that struck me as bumptious and ill-considered. You may be a smart man, someone who's thoughts I value, but you are not a mindreader. And I think it was the knowledge (here, a more appropriate use of the term) that you are indeed a smart man which made your rhetoric when discussing the Kavanaugh matter so befuddling. That said, even the best of us are allowed off days and I'll continue to look forward to your conversations with Glenn and elsewhere.

[@philibusters]

My thoughts so far (through about 35 minutes) 0:44 John on his recent controversial Glenn Show appearance I think John was criticized more harshly than warranated. He was a bit hyperbolic, but people need to relax and accept other people will have opinions that differ from themselves. 5:32 Glenn reacts to seeing Hamilton on Broadway I read the biography of Hamilton that inspired the play and liked it a lot. To quibble a bit at the biography, Chernow does what 99% of biographers do and that is he sees the world through their perspective rather than staying neutral (Joseph Ellis would be an exception to the rule if you are looking for a biographer who does a good job at staying neutral), but the book is masterfully written and Hamilton was a geniuinely interesting subject. I have not seen the play. I don't plan on seeing it because when it came to the DC area tickets were hundreds of dollars. If tickets were say $150 , I'd probably go see it because I can sort of justify that. But when tickets are 2 to 3 times that, forget it. Plus I live in Hampton Roads Virginia so I am about a 3 hour drive from DC. A lot of good plays come to Norfolk and I go to see some of them (like one every two years). I thought the discussion on whether a slave perspective was needed in Hamilton was interesting. I am going to analyze this in a postmodernism context. postmodernism is obsessed with meta-narratives which is a " is a narrative about narratives of historical meaning, experience, or knowledge, which offers a society legitimation through the anticipated completion of a (as yet unrealized) master idea" (from wikipedia) and that is certainly what the story of the founding of our country is. The master idea is representative democracy and its power. The idea is that our gov't and similar gov't are the best gov'ts yet fashioned by men. In this play through the use of people of color as actors you also see that democracy has a power that even the founding fathers could not clearly see--it tends to broaden the number of people who get to participate in political decision making over time (at one time, largely before the time of our republic it was thought only aristocrats should have a voice, then all property owners, than all white males, than all males, than woman, and so on) which the play thinks is a good thing even if the process isn't complete yet (e.g.not racial inequality). So when John says the play is not political--its art---well I think he is wrong. It is telling a narrative about democracy. Which goes to a separate aspect of postmodernism. After some people (certainly not all) imbue its arguments, then tend towards relativism. They learn to deconstruct meta-narratives like the narrative about the founding of this country and they learn to look for whats missing. And they think a slave's perspective is just as valid as the narrative put forth by the founding fathers. But what they fail to understand is that narratives are not judged based on their historical accuracy, but rather on how useful they are. I have conservative friends on Facebook who are very free market friendly. I think that is a reasonable position to have---but their arguments often strike me as simple. There is an unawareness in their arguments that unregulated markets often produce inefficient results due to monopoly, collusion, or even lack of basic infrastructure (supply and demand will only adjust to each other if there is a flow of information back and forth between them and you need infrastructure like roads, a system of money, and the internet to make that happen). I am pro-market and pro-capitialist but even I can see they lack nuance. Yet pointing out the historical inaccuracies or flaws in their logic is just as pointless as trying to point out historical inaccuracies and flaws in logic of social justice warrior narratives to social justice warriors. Narratives have power and the only effective way to combat them is to attack them at their foundations. All of that is a long way of saying John was right--since narratives are judged on their usefulness, added perspectives would simply distract and make the player longer and the power of the narrative would be diminished. 17:03 What’s the future of heterodox black thought? As a a 35 year white person its pure speculation for give an opinion, but an opinion I will give anyway. Long story short, black identity will either fade to have less significance or it will go the Jewish route (concidently John filmed that at a Jewish learning center). Jewish identity persisted despite a lot of obstacles. It persisted despite a lot of persecution. It persisted despite that Jews were not really a separate race (they looked like other middle easterns) and thus unlike the black-white thing today it was not as superficially noticeable. It persisted despite teh fact Jews emigrated into new enviornments like Western Europe and it would have been way easier for them to assimilate. So how did it persist. Well it starts with a lot of silly rituals that don't accomplish much (like circumcision) other than fostering an identity. Ritual became a very important part of Jewish life (no pork, et cetera) and without ritual the Jewish identity would have ceased a long time ago. So if black thought and identity is going to go strong it is going to have to ritual and ways to differentiate from the general population (hence why black people are always accusing white people of cultural appropriation but struggle to defend the charge---they probably don't want to get to the truth of the matter--when white people do black things---it diminishes the black identity by illustrating the universality of humanity). Going back to the Jewish analogy thought everything I said fails to address a key point--that the majority of people (probably vast majority) descended from people who lived under the historical King David's kingdom, probably don't identify as Jewish today. Not only that but a lot of Jewish people like my roommates in law school are profoundly affected by the Englightenment and are for examples atheists and are skeptical of at least some Jewish traditions which means a lot of people in the future descended from modern day Jews won't identify as Jewish because the ritual and religion and the things that kept the identity strong are weakening. With the acknowledgement that the future could go many ways, my instinct is that long term (over hundreds of years), black thought is probably fucked in the sense that the black identity will weaken and thus the term black thought will start to lose its meaning. To me, black identity and black thought go hand in hand. Black identity needs black thought to sustain it and black thought wouldn't make sense as a term without black identity. My GF is south Indian. She is probably darker than John and maybe a little bit lighter than Glenn (google "Indian people" and you will see what I mean). In general the people of southern Indian are darker than the people of northern India (though both populations have a range) and India perspective if anything has more identity politics in it than the U.S. Yet my gf really doesn't think in terms of race. She thinks in terms of religion, caste, language (for example her state was one of the states that threatened to succeed form the union if Hindi was made the official language (Hindi is considered a northern Indian language))which is why India has two official languages Hindi and English and why the national government only communicates with the southern states in English. At one time being Irish American meant something to people's identity--now it generally doesn't. At one time being a member of a labor union meant something to people political identity--now it doesn't. Things change... black identity is going to face significant challenges in the future. There is no inevitability that race will be a top identity for people in the future as the Indian example illustrates. 31:23 Assessing the effect of Black Lives Matter Its incredibly influential. Its has strengthen black identity significantly. John and Glenn are somewhat missing the point when they talk about policy change or helping the poor. Yes those are the stated goals of BLM, but the real goal that many of its members probably don't truly understand is to strengthen black identity. That is where its most significant effects have taken place (at least metaphorically---black identity is not actual a physical location or place). In terms of policy to me, it is likely going to be a crapshoot about what it accomplishes. Perhaps as Glenn (or maybe it was John) said, by focusing on police killing black people they will force reform that addresses police incompetence. Perhaps not. We don't know, its a crapshoot. The reason its a crapshoot is that its focus will always be on what issue in the short term will increase black identity and that could vary over time.

[@philibusters]

34:35 Will race always be a central part of black people’s self-conceptions? I accidentally covered my thoughts for this the black thought issue. I guess I will mention that I liked the books "Sapiens" and "Homo Deus" too which Glenn and John mention. 43:52 Glenn foretells the end of identity politics Long term I can see a decline identity politics, but not in the short (next 10 years) or maybe even intermediate term (next generation or 20 to 30 years). I think the rise in identity politics is somewhat deep and somewhat fortuitous. Its fortuitous in the sense that the invention of social media has given it fuel. However its deep in that modernity and the cultural revolution of the 1960's shredded a lot of traditional identities. Gender, sexual identities, race, and class identities have all had a lot of fluidity added into them since the 1960's and until they somewhat stabilize, identity politics will flare up. Long term I think identity politics is in trouble because the enlightenment and science revolution is in the ascendancy as Steven Pinker has pointed out and identity politics won't hold up to the rational, logical analysis inherent in the englightenment.

[@JasonM96]

I think there’s some merit to Harari’s thesis but to hold it with any vigor requires a whistling past the graveyard of the likelihood of increased disease, conflict, etc., as a consequence of climate change.

[@exponent8562]

Great chat! Love you guys! I feel like I owe $$ for earned credits.

[@rbglennie6177]

I haven't seen a discussion on this forum that wasn't excellent.

[@mrridikilis]

Love this podcast; can't deal with bad audio. Consider recording audio individually and locally with digital recorder or even smartphone, then combine audio. Love the content, but just can't listen

[@vicsummers9431]

“I know” is a little more than “hyperbolic” John. You must realize that’s not in any sense a fair characterization of your position in that episode. The evidence you gave in that episode was almost entirely unfavorable *interpretation* of facts...not facts, as such.

[@TPaineYang]

How is it reasonable that Judge Kavanaugh did it if the evidence is unsubstantial? This is no different than Trump's opinion on the central park 5 case.

[@Salipenter1]

Love you guys, but this was your worst audio ever. Insufferably awful.

[@Purple_911]

Loury is the opposite of Dyson... Michael Eric Dyson strings a bunch of big words together that means nothing. Glenn uses them and they make sense. He isn't saying them for the novelty of saying it like Dyson. They are part of his normal vocabulary.

[@Krazie1nyc]

Agreed... I used to think so highly of Dyson but turns out I wasn't listening. Watching him debate Jordan Peterson was such a let down. I felt embarrassed for him.

[@Hannah-tg8hw]

I love them! As for you ppl griping about audio and presentation-get a grip-this is neither a rap battle nor a telenovela. Absent-minded professors couldn’t care less about superficial aesthetics and sound. Stop hearing, and listen!

[@newmediarules]

Damn right!

[@devoteeofgeorgesmiley7184]

Glenn Loury has announced that he will be seated to the immediate right and Johnny McWhorter will be seated to the immediate left of Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith at her next Ole' Miss public hanging. Senator Hyde-Smith will also provide seating for Loury's parole officer.

[@manzell]

Gotta use headphones my dude.

[@paulbarry9970]

I love these men. "Hamilton" is a masterpiece. Doesn't Jordan Peterson make 10 million a year from Patreon? He should fund recording studios at both Brown and Columbia. The majority of my kids' friends - my kids are white, early 20's - are minorities. I never cared about race and I think that rubbed off, as it were. Maybe there's the possibility that we in the US get past race by the next generation, say, in 50 years time. Fingers crossed that happens and that John will see it.

[@ThomasSaffel]

I'd like to go on record saying that I thought the Glenn and John's discussion of the Kavanaugh hearings was excellent. Stimulating, to say the least.

[@briannajohnson4239]

I just started watching your show, and am a new subscriber. I really enjoy your discussions. John, for what it's worth, I understood what you meant about Kavanaugh, and am still a fan!

[@MartinBlack]

Lads, sort the audio out! Your voices are far too important for this!

[@xmikex902x]

I’m lean comfortably to the right and am vociferously opposed to the ideological meanderings of those on the far-left, or “SJWs”, including many of the #MeToo styled witch hunts, but Kavanaugh’s response was so unbelievably cringeworthy to me. Now, do I think he’s guilty of the accusation, I don’t know. Do I think he should’ve stepped down based on the evidence? Absolutely not. So I see where John is coming from, but ultimately disagreed with him, which is fine. To me, Kavanugh’s response appeared to be overreacted political correctness (in the older sense of the word, if that makes sense). But, given the gravity of the situation, it was necessary political correctness. Still, I’m not going to be blinded from calling it like it is. The same way O’bama, Clinton, Bush, etc. would come out and give some important, well-crafted, yet hollow speech.

[@manzell]

W/R/T to "Who's White" - we can be sure that black people will be last in line for that.

[@Malignus68]

That background noise is intolerable. Sorry but I gotta skip this one.

[@cmattbacon7838]

Less than 3000 people actually read any of Einstein's papers while he was alive. It's not how many you influence, it's who. Trust me ;) You never know who is watching..

[@joshuabrecka6012]

Go John. Some of us are on your side...

[@jjroseknows777]

Still with the bull-shiggidy sound.

[@rbglennie6177]

I agreed with John McWhorter on the previous episode I think.

[@gremgreene2725]

Offer Kmele Foster whiteness and see what he does. My money is on him taking the offer of whiteness.

[@libertywilly7519]

Just one guys opinion but I'm thankful for finding this channel. You two gents provide the best content for blogging heads. Always a stimulating exchange of ideas.

[@Thomas...191]

Totally agree... I accept my ears may bleed mid listen from poor audio... still worth it

[@bofbob1]

Glenn and John: have you guys ever heard of "demo-mode"? I think your show could benefit from it. These conversations are already great, but demo-mode could bring them to a whole new level.

[@Bopcity1]

John ... ideological heterodoxy takes many forms.

[@Ryan-wf6ib]

I appreciate John addressing the last video but I would have respected him more if he just doubled down on those views and elaborated them more rather then informing us that he is indeed reasonable. It is your words and arguments that can only do that job. It's true you have a wealth of podcasts to support your record of sensibility but I really hope you took to heart the comments on the last video from the audience, however insulting they were, don't let your ego override what was simply a little "check yourself" by the audience..

[@reallycoolguy121]

Always stoked to hear you guys chat! Love both of you.

[@alarabi7]

criminally underwatched!

[@gannontrueman4893]

Clearly no one involved in the show is looking at comments because if they were, on ANY given video, they'd see that the goddamn audio quality is the number one response to ALL of these shows. Good mics are cheap these days, for fucks' sake GET BETTER MICS!!!

[@coajrmusic]

Gentlemen, know that the reason why Hamilton is being financed and promoted by the powers that be is because he was a tool of the Crown. His job was to establish a Central Banking system in America. Conversely , Jackson is hated, by that same power, because he killed that system; which was the last time we were debt-free as a nation (by the way, they tried to kill him for that). They also want his face off of the $20. bill. The primary color in this drama is not black or white, it's green. Wilson, anther tool, re-established the system in 1913, the result being the Nation is 21t in debt in 2018. The importance of that will be realized when we can no longer make the interest payments and we begin to suffer the effects of being a third world nation. The only thing I can say to truly express my feeling is 'Fuck Hamilton'....I suggest you 'academics' use your platform to teach. I feel I have provided more facts and information in this short paragraph than this near hour long video...

[@tonysamosa1717]

They were so optimistic a year ago that BLM was waning and there were a plethora of Coleman’s who would soon come forward....and now, in 2020, 4 days from the presidential election they must be so disdraught

[@evaneugenescott]

Can someone explain why John keeps citing Alton Sterling as an example of egregious police misconduct? The man had a gun and was reaching for it while fighting with police.

[@artherladett442]

Hi, Evan if you watch the video, you will see that he appears to be pinned to the ground, underneath the front bumper of the car. From the angles available he doesn't appear to be reaching for anything. But, indeed, he is struggling with the officers, not complying with the commands given by the officers. Was he able to actually reach his pistol with both arms pinned? Did he have sufficient space and leverage to lift his arm and position himself to actually aim the pistol? These were some of the questions that occurred to me. He was a convicted felon. Did the officers have a right to approach him with caution, given a phone call claiming he was brandishing a firearm? Yes. Does this mean, compounded by his disobedience, equal the right to extinguish a life? I don't think so. So, on balance, I can understand why he might have used Alton Sterling as an example. Do you see where I am coming from?

[@evaneugenescott]

Arther Ladett given that the only reason he didn’t have leverage to grab the gun was that cops were actively holding him down and his arm was still working to gain control, I cannot agree with your perspective. You are free to have it, but it is not reasonable for John to present it as a simple black-and-white example of a “bad shoot” by a cop of an unarmed black man.

[@artherladett442]

Hello Evan! In fact, your assessment is reasonable. He did lump that case in with others, which are of a more egregious nature, so I can see your point. I think, the manner in which he was shot, if you observe the video, three shots to the chest area, while being pinned, this is perhaps not the best approach to subduing a perpetrator. Did you watch the video? Watch both the cop's bodycam, and observe his language and the language of the perpetrator himself, and watch the grainy cell phone shot. Do you see where I am coming from? I would just like to add that I am not naïve about the nature violence in poor black communities, about the razor edged task of policing and protecting its inhabitants. However, I still must pose the question: can you admit that this was, maybe, an inordinate escalation of violence?

[@evgeny9965]

John you are back peddling...own up ... having to be disappointed in your audience members from your ivory tower is sickening.

[@tragicslip]

28min it's a thin account and like water boiling away in the pot. it seems to me to be getting louder, but there is less of a case made today than 20 years ago. we the people stand ready to claim our destiny, forfeited on the cheap for pity's sake.

[@garywood97]

Is John in a McDonalds or something?

[@cmattbacon7838]

Its not absolute accomplishment that matters but relative accomplishment. If you grew up with more limitations then that is a part of the accomplishment. Black astronauts are more impressive than WASPy ones. Even if identity politics ends it doesn't change your past. Going forward if we dont remember that there was inequality then we're bound to repeat it. Youre just feeling shame because some Democrats are behaving shamefully with such facts. Dont let their attempts to divide people make you feel bad for trying to teach your kids the truth.

[@jessiej1746]

Y'all have got to get y'all's Audio and Video under control. It's the current year!

[@maryhudson4280]

Nice to see you both back. Always thought-provoking.

[@MrSbmerriman]

Another lucid and insightful conversation

[@polybian_bicycle]

Reinforcing faith in humanity again. Thanks.

[@Ehole_84]

John no need to explain...don't let the herd get to you!

[@thomasrichardson8732]

Best BH duo!

[@naveengta]

Please please please... improve the audio.

[@elijahwilliameby2030]

John, stop reading the comments man :) Almost none of us took your Kavanaugh statement that way.

[@nickadt]

John has nothing to apologise for. However, did not GL claim that the Kavinnough hearings would seriously risk Dems loosing the midterms?

[@nickadt]

@@dimitrioskantakouzinos8590 They picked up a grand total 2 seats in a highly favored map. Come now.