The “Starbucks and Swimming Pool” Problem | Glenn Loury & John McWhorter [The Glenn Show]

0:51 Revisiting the “Starbucks and swimming pool” problem
12:27 A new soft bigotry of low expectations?
22:10 Glenn: Some so-called microaggressions are in fact justified
30:55 John: When I’m microagressed against, I feel superior
44:33 The Nation magazine’s racially controversial poem
55:30 John calls Jordan Peterson “kind of sinister”
62:10 The experience of being the only black person at a conference
Glenn Loury (Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University) and John McWhorter (Columbia University, Lexicon Valley)
Recorded August 10, 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....

[@asbjrndeplace3396]

When you realise Glenn Loury may be the best interviewer on youtube currently. So few interviewers ask such intelligent questions and give their guests time to fully articulate their arguments, but to top it off he also does that thing where he repeats (and sometimes enrich) the guests argument to make sure they are on the same page... Hope i'll be able to do that one day :) Sub from Denmark, hope you keep up the brilliant work!

[@TheCrusaderRabbits]

I found out about Glen yesterday. I am bingeing his stuff now.

[@xmikex902x]

Been refreshing KZbin all day waiting for this. Plz get on JRE for that much deserved clout ;)

[@shavedata5436]

I'd love to see it.

[@chrisw7347]

Such inspiring, clear headed human beings. We've got to try and get these guys on Joe Rogan's podcast if everyone's willing.

[@mackenziebowles2443]

yup.

[@shavedata5436]

Oh yes

[@lairdgarvin1170]

Which is kind of like saying we need to get YoYoMa to play for us at PF Chang

[@josephgrueter890]

@@lairdgarvin1170 Only with regards to technical merit. If, however, your motivation were to expose a greater portion of the public to classical music, then your hypothetical suggestion may still warrant consideration.

[@laurinewilliams4728]

@@mackenziebowles2443 f

[@ericarrow7785]

As a Black father I teach my children to be appreciative that micro aggressions are MICRO. Racism exists and that is frustrating and wrong. But not impossibly so. We can become academics, doctors, and lawyers AND endure these microagressions. It's an additional price to pay but one I can afford. I can remember taking an English placement test as an incoming freshman. Looking at my schedule I noticed an "H" next to my name. I asked the girl at the desk what that meant. She looked at me and said Oh, I'll get that fixed. She came back a few minutes later and said that I was to wait in "that room over there". Turns out that room was for people who had qualified for Honors English. I felt like she pre judged me and couldn't even swallow her pride to tell me that I was supposed to get that H. But I didn't care. I was one of only two Black people in that room. And the other one is still my wife 25 years later.

[@mikelezcurra810]

I'm as white as one can be. If I had a dime for every time I've walked into a store and the sales person has looked at me and decided I'm not going to be spending much money there, so his time is better spent elsewhere... I would have a lot of dimes.

[@Jackaroo.]

Or more likely she was dealing with dozens of people a day, with a multitude of different problems and inquiries, and you brought something to her attention that you found remarkable enough to alert her of, so she swiftly went about trying to find the proper course of action. She then returned and notified you of said course of action. Did you expect her to return and lavish praise and admiration on you? You're upset at her for doing her job. This sounds like a projection of your own insecurities.

[@ericarrow7785]

@@Jackaroo. Sounds like we both read this situation very differently. I'm more inclined to lean towards my point of view since I was actually there. I believe she was dismissive of me and gave me the impression my Honors designation needed to be "fixed". I don't regret any of it, though. I always joke that I wouldn't be married today if not for that standardized test that put me in the same room with my future wife.

[@joedellaselva1251]

'.........is still my wife 25 years later.' That is an awesome story!

[@fafinaf]

I’ve been binging on your past episodes for the past week. So excited for this episode. Thanks guys!

[@2009Jaye]

fafinaf is your avatar a baby eyelash?

[@shavedata5436]

I thought your profile pic was a piece of hair on my screen

[@gagamba9198]

I went through a period of expecting the worst in people. Experience the taxi passing me to pick up other fares, people jumping the queue right in front of me as if I don't exist, the bartender keeps taking orders from others as I wait, etc, etc. Receive praise and I suspected people were patronising me. Even really bizarre things such as the woman who called an emergency meeting of the building's residents because I had moved in. What next happened is I started expecting these to happen, and when it didn't I wouldn't even recognise it because I had already framed the event in my mind. It's a poison. It made me defensive and suspicious and at times even aggressive. And I'd have conversations with others who relayed their similar experiences and those became mine - not that I claimed they happened to me but I'd feel anger about it because I took it personally. Soon enough, I was taking behaviour by others, most of whom whose motivations I can only guess to varying degrees of accuracy, and then projected it onto others who had yet to do anything wrong. The thing is, the great majority of my interactions went without a problem. I had allowed the few to overshadow the many. Sure, there are bastards out there, and racists, and fools. And sometimes the person simply made a mistake. But by and large, everyone else was just fine. It was my mistake to think the worst of others. This reset my thinking and I think my life is the better for it.

[@ryanmcjilton445]

When debating race, I try and only quote people from the race in question. When the race is black, I typically use 2 of my hero's, T. Sowell & W. Williams. But I now have to add 2 more to my list, G. Loury & J. McWhorter. Thank you both for being truthful and factual about race & reality, and not toeing the line. Refreshing to say the least.

[@cubangal1]

Coleman Hughes......remember that name....great interview with him so I'm sure Pangborn lecture will be great....good luck Glenn!!

[@palmerj213]

I don't think Peterson ducked the question at all. I think Jordan doesn't want to simplify complex phenomenon too much, lest a significantly important aspect is lost. For example, as a chemist, you could ask a relatively "simple" question about Mass Spectroscopy, I could give you a 30 sec answer that doesn't really tell you anything at all or have to give you 30 min primer for you to actually understand. Most people want the 30 sec answer because they really aren't interested in the answer. John seems to have wanted the 30 min a new answer but the way he asked at the time suggested the 30 sec answer. Honestly, if I didn't already know who John is and his views... The way he asked the question was very condescending. In the end, to what Peterson said...it's a judgement call that you have to be responsible for the consequences. You have to take context with that person into account. You have a history with that person that MUST be taken into account. There is no simple heuristic.

[@j.h252]

palmerj213 Same impression in Aspen Jordan is a hero of our time, cause, he had and has the courage and eloquence to counter the unelaborate narratives of the left. I don't think John, you do academia a favor tuning in to their crap, better being truthful like JBP and take risks being authentic. Appeasement has never worked, remember Chamberlain, hence the suppressors takes your tolerance as weakness and this will even foster their poisonous tendencies. JBP was risking everything, by opposing bill C16, showing spine. Sometimes you have to stand firm with your shoulders back and do what has to be done. I found your question in Aspen a bit sneaky, cause it is obvious no one can have a trick to identify a trickster from a true meaning genderist, if you thought he could give you a waterproof advice, you would be quite naive, I say this as admirer of you, Glenn and also Jordan. You all do good work to let the truth shine brighter. Btw, I think Intellectual-Dark-Web is a stupid name for people who bring light into the darkness of ideological blindness, why the media was so happy to brand these knights of darkness with IDW, but Glenn and John, you surely should be part of it, cause it needs more courage to speak the truth, belonging to the group you criticize and is eagerly drinking more of the poisonous stuff of victim hood. Chapeau!

[@NoahSteckley]

I agree on every point. John's question was so much broader than he seemed to think it was. May as well have just asked "Peterson, how do you make decisions in relation to people?" Seems like John wanted a magic trick, or that he believed Peterson was claiming to be performing one. Not the case at all. Peterson was talking about a Rogerian embodied experience as his measurement, which is nothing special to a psychologist, it's just being aware of how you _feeEeeEel_ . That, plus a recognition of its fallibility and a much deeper moral stance about one's individual need for responsibility for one's Self.

[@hejla4524]

palmerj213 exactly right. Peterson answered the question honestly, fully and directly, but John McWhorter either didn't listen to or didn't understand the answer - probably due to an underlying hostility he has towards him.

[@09BiGDylan]

So you guys think that both Glenn and John are wrong that Peterson side-stepped the question? Lack of compassion does not equate to more courageous, I often times think it is the opposite. It is hard to be compassionate to people you disagree with, its typically much easier to other-ise a group of people with whom you disagree or see as a part of a different ideology. To many Peterson fanboys who are uncritical of him. I use to be one of them and I am happy I left that behind.

[@iAmTheSquidThing]

I was disappointed with Peterson's answer though. It was basically "I just know. But I can't explain." He usually has no problem with giving long, detailed, technical answers, so he could've at least attempted a primer.

[@wanderlist]

Glenn Loury needs to throw a little shade on that window.

[@happytime11]

Racist!!!

[@ChollieD]

Yay! More Glenn Show with Glenn and John!

[@thomascummings7589]

Try dressing like a blue-collar worker, with sawdust or concrete dust or roof tar on your clothing for a month or two when you go out, see how you were treated, relative to when you dress upscale. I think you would find the difference in treatment remarkable. There are many dimensions in which we pre-judge each other rightly or wrongly. For most of my life I was a carpenter/Furniture Maker, after a divorce in my late 40s, and a new job teaching woodworking, when I started dating again I was wearing much more upscale clothing, the difference with which people treated me was remarkable. Many Women in general don’t even look at you if you are wearing blue-collar clothing, if you smile at their children they look suspiciously at you. Once you put on a clean shirt and some trendy clothing, we won’t even include the fact that if you drive a BMW, the approach you get from the outside world looking at you is Market a bully different. Medical people treat you as if you are ignorant, and condescending to you on occasion. One might be able to assume, I do not have the data, that he well dressed African-American would send better in many situations and then a poorly dressed white person.

[@golpherguy6388]

Is it ok if I like Mr. Peterson as well as Mr. Loury and McWhorter? LOL

[@galaxyseed70]

Another great discussion! But John, I wish you had accepted the invitation to the Pangburn event.

[@RoderickGraham]

"When you are in the grip of a narrative, the facts don't matter."

[@hejla4524]

Incredible! Over an hour discussing microaggressions when earlier this month in one weekend 74 blacks were shot (12 fatally) in Chicago and not a word from these two. 1:04:00 It's time Glenn broke out of this campus bubble and embrace the IDW. He has a lot in common with them and could bring so much to the table by talking plainly about race and other issues without having to watch his back all the time.

[@jjroseknows777]

Let me stop and take the time to express myself with words to you two guys. I have such a head full of ideas and thoughts that I want to watch a couple of videos pertaining to this and to listen to THIS again before I do but you know how that can go; I might never get back and never have said a word. I love this conversation between you two so much; it has made me feel like a person having a much more vibrant life having experienced so many thought and feelings during this past hour and fifteen-minutes. I thank you both! I have watched the two of you 2 or 3 times and I watched the one where Gregg says he has stopped believing in God. That was a big pill to swallow but today I find that that knowledge did not change how I see you at all, Gregg. (Thank God! ...no play on words intended...) It's late and I think I'll let it go for now; I have expressed my love and admiration. Just to say, I VERY MUCH loved the moment of the blowing kisses...I thought it was an expression of love and thank God on your part but was truly amused to know you were blowing kiss to your wife leaving. It was a lighter than air moment with all the hilarity of childhood in the simplicity of my joy.

[@glennloury3677]

Nice to read this, jjroseknows777 -- very encouraging. By the way, this Glenn, not Gregg...!!

[@jjroseknows777]

Darn...I had a moment, an inkling, and went right on Glenn! (Here I sit listening to it the second time.) Thanks for responding.

[@jjroseknows777]

Yes! Although one of the things I want to go over are the words about Peterson here. Yes,, Dan, and I do miss him already: him being on vacation and all.

[@garytaylor4990]

Looking forward to hearing the conversation between Glen and Jordan Peterson. Should be both thought-provoking and invigorating. Intelligent conversation is somehow energizing, a vacation from the common-place, hackneyed​ chatter that abounds in the MSM.

[@garytaylor4990]

The Glen Show along with John McWhorter should have many more subscribers. Agree or disagree with either of them is irrelevant this is healthy intelligent dialogue. The MSM is destroying brain cells on a daily basis.

[@rdptll]

the rapport these guys have with each other in disagreement is just fun to watch, lol.

[@maryhudson4280]

An American who's lived in Europe for many years I have put up with countless "micro-aggressions" rooted in centuries-old English prejudices that have oozed out into Europe in general against Americans and our English. Thomas Jefferson wrote about it and Benjamin Franklin too was victimized by it. Prejudice is everywhere. We need to develop a sense of proportion about these things.

[@SFDestiny]

I find it hard to suppose Old Ben was ever victimized, but I do take your meaning.

[@maryhudson4280]

Michael Davis Read about Franklin’s humiliating grilling before parliament in 1766.

[@roothogordie1451]

As Loury and McWhorter both say in their own ways, each of us needs to develop one's own sense of one's own self dignity, which cannot be diminished by any of that stuff.

[@olewetdog6254]

Do Europeans call the police on white folks all the time for doing essentially nothing? That's what happened in Starbucks. Let's not forget that.

[@jakewatson6303]

John asked for Peterson to describe the specific psychological technique he would use to determine if a student is genuine in asking him to use a preferred pronoun such as "they." Peterson did not say he had a specific technique for determining if an individual was genuine or manipulative other than his 20 years of psychotherapy experience. He said context and how the student would ask would be the key variables in his decision. This issue is a type 1/type 2 error conundrum. If you oblige the student and they aren't genuine then that's an error. If you don't oblige the student and they are being genuine then that's another error. Peterson would rather make the latter error. One thing to note, I've never seen him not call a trans person by their preferred pronoun.

[@palmerj213]

He has... Just ask Theryn Meyer

[@jakewatson6303]

palmerj213 yeah he referred to theryn as "she"

[@newmediarules]

This is my favorite show. I only hate that it only comes on once a month at best. And that includes dramas, talk shows, whatever.

[@londonhardcorekid]

they finally have good quality video!!!

[@greggodesignbuild6624]

Donald Norman, "The Design of Everyday Things", did a study on the psychology of lines. Standing in line is a linear experience of fairness. Is it moving at a reasonable pace, do I receive service at the end, are there any people cutting the line, and thereby, making my wait longer? I can probably tolerate a few incidents of line favoritism at the discretion of the "person in charge", but I will be almost obsessively vigilant, to maintain line integrity from sneaky invaders. [ And yes, in case you are wondering, I do occasionally cut line in traffic and must live with my hypocrisy.] Thank God for online shopping.

[@heatherchapman1984]

Great quote from John: "To be human is to be resilient." Have you guys been paying attention to Jordan Peterson lately? Seriously, would love to hear your take on his message. Glenn, talking about "the narrative" as the root problem feeding over-sensitivity to relatively rare micro-agressions . . . yeah, you guys really do need to discuss your takes on what Jordan Peterson has been saying. Oh, man! And John's advice to Coleman Hughs . . . so true! It reminds me of the brilliant example of that rhetorical tactic in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar - you know, Marc Antoy's speech: "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." Good discussion, guys! (oops. well I commented too quickly. You guys DO discuss what Peterson's saying. I was just so excited by your points. Oh well! :-)

[@gplus46]

This is a refreshing conversation. GL reminds me a lot of john amos.

[@tlockerk]

A local small state university is hosting a day-long training in 'Black Fatigue on Campus: Dealing with Microaggressions". Will this increase or decrease them? No one is doing that research. Serving Veterans with severe PTSD, I did feel uncomfortable at the title -- seeming to imply that enduring everyday "microaggressions" is equivalent to the 'battle fatigue' of those who served in combat zones and came home to try to live in the world...many of whom are also men and women of color. I always enjoy your conversations, and always leave thinking...thank you for that! When listening to the Aspen panel I immediately recognized Dr. McWhorter's voice and great question. Dr. Loury, ARE part of the IDW already whether you have the secret decoder ring or not There, my second appreciative FB post of this year.

[@TheLandoMo]

Just got my ticket for the event in November! Really excited to see Glenn and Coleman. It really is too bad John is not going to attend.

[@Dash277]

You guys are great to listen to. I'm not sure how to parse it all but I do appreciate the point of view.

[@jacobdeem8187]

I'd listen to these 2 discuss the phone book

[@homelesszombieapocalypse6622]

Thanks Glenn and John for sharing your conversation here, which is illuminating as usual. One thing that I didn't understand, which is the point John made at 55:44 about his question to Jordan Peterson about how does Jordan (as a clinical psychologist) know the difference between someone wanting to be referred by a pronoun other than he or she, who is really in pain and should be accomodated out of basic human decency, versus others who are playing a card. As I see it, it does not matter at all WHY someone wants to be called "they" or "zhe" or "faer" or "vis" or any other invented term. Just as it doesn't matter why, if I ask to be referred to as "your royal highness" or "Mr Elf", I have that wish. Doesn't matter if they are really in pain, or just being manipulative or controlling. It doesn't help people to be accomodated in their delusions, regardless how sincere or in how much pain they may be. No one is a "they", we are all he or she. If we become obligated to anyone to use invented language to accomodate them in their pain, then the nonsense will have no end. I might insist on being referred to as the fairy or elf being that I really am, or Santa Claus or whatever fantasy I may have. It's rare that any of us will ever be fully known and seen by another human being, largely because it's quite rare that anyone will have this capacity -- we can expect to be fully known by God, but not by mere mortals. The fixation on being referred to by an increasing number of invented pronouns should be seen for what it is -- a confusion of the interior of the psyche (which is vast and perhaps limitless) with our biological form (which is limited and sexed/gendered). It is also a search for a mirror in the wrong place. The random person on the street is not God, who can be put upon to see you in all your complexity. And just as both of you explain regarding so-called "micro-aggressions", which you both agree do no damage, I would argue the same with pronouns. It just doesn't do any damage to a woman who feels masculine to be referred to as "she",or for a man who feels feminine to be called "he." If anyone is "damaged" by having someone refer to their biological sex, that person is too fragile to cope with real life and should stay home all day and never go outside.

[@Kaleidoface]

I think both of these voices would be welcomed and valuable additions to the IDW sphere. It seems to be a group that handles disagreement, nuance, and idiosyncrasy quite well. These men needn't feel that they would be "token" members in any sense. To my ears, the IDW just wants to recruit clear voices. (As long as they support free speech.)

[@frostfox1208]

Yes it makes me happy that the truth is shining through the clouds too. Thanks to both of you😁

[@zaprowsdower2879]

I don't understand the perspective yall hold about the starbucks situation. I can understand the view that slights are made everyday solely because of race, but the starbucks case is so apparent in my opinion that I don't understand how you could view it as anything other than people behaving poorly, regardless of race. For instance, I am from New Orleans and appear white, though I'm spanish, and have had that same situation Glenn mentioned countless times. We can't always equate assholes to racism in all cases because a lot of the time, people simply being assholes will suffice.

[@nickhowitt3896]

I listen to you guys a lot - I think your dialogue is extremely refreshing and honest. That was some pretty uninspiring anecdotal evidence of the starbucks phenomenon in Glen's personal life though. I have to say. I honestly don't know whether it happens more often to certain groups (I suspect it does)....but it happens to everybody

[@jeremybentham5037]

43:33 John, I think I remember watching one such talk you gave years ago, where at the end there was an extended discussion in the audience regarding the race of actors who played Othello and a member of the community essentially accused you of having internalized your oppression.

[@bizonc]

Skywalker 1138 fucking idiots. Treating someone like that is ridiculous

[@NoahSteckley]

At least half of my first year University English class reading was post-modern through and through. We read two classic texts...

[@otakurocklee]

Fascinating to hear you talk about these topics. Even though I might think the same thoughts... as someone who is not black, I wouldn't dare utter them in public.

[@Krazie1nyc]

Yeah.. don't even tell anyone you watch these guys. Just clear it from your history as if it's porn. It's like that

[@gwlaw99]

I get what John is saying, but how does he know that's why he was being invited. Or maybe its 80 percent because he is a thoughtful commentator on race.

[@conorcorrigan765]

When you are a hammer, all your problems look like nails...

[@kspehar1]

Great talk! And the siren at 28:50 is too funny 😄

[@mheermance]

I hadn't heard about John McWhorter's armor piercing question to Jordan Peterson, but it was both good and obvious in retrospect.

[@williamroberts8773]

I’m starting a book club with my mom and dad what a good idea thanks!

[@bizonc]

What’s brilliant about these two and I’m a liberal that follows the high priestess but I’m a science person first so I can never have a really strong view on some social political issues. Anyway back to my first statement of brilliance is they are intelligent academics that are really trying to figure out what is true, parsing the complexities of the world. I hate to say non-ideologies because it’s overused. They care about tackling issues and find truth.

[@bizonc]

What I mean by social for example is Im not referring to how we treat people but more what is the best way to set up society for social animals and what can we say for sure about police, bias, socioeconomic etc

[@olewetdog6254]

I've been watching them on BhTV for years and they are the absolute stars of the show. And I get REALLY mad with Glenn sometimes but you are correct. They tackle these issues head on and really do try to get at the truth which is very gray and not at all black and white.

[@MichaelKolczynski]

Love you two

[@torrey2677]

The test I use to determine whether an argument is good and/or rational or not is to see whether that argument can be used rationally in other situations. I think that in order for an argument to be deemed credible it must have more than one application. For instance, one of the most easily-defended arguments that exists is that "too much of anything - even a good thing - is not good. Everything should be taken in moderation." You can literally fit this into any scenario and it will check out as true. I'm not saying that every good argument must fit an infinite number of situations, but I am saying that there is no good argument that only fits one situation. So Loury and McWhorter argue that blacks should not be so perturbed by racial prejudice and it's manifestations because they are resilient enough to overcome these things. As McWhorter put it, blacks could just "scrape it off of your shoe." Hmmm... Let's see if this argument checks out in other situations. For instance, I heard on the news the other day that someone was robbed of $1,500.00. The police did eventually catch the culprit but the person who was robbed was apparently resilient enough to re-earn that $1,500.00 so the culprit should not be held accountable. My son was punched by a bully student last week on the last day of school. But that's ok - I told him that he is resilient enough to recover from the attack so the bully should not be held accountable. Then I saw on the news just yesterday that an elderly man was shot by some thug. The authorities are saying the elderly man is so resilient and responsive to treatment that he will survive his gunshot wounds so the shooter shouldn't be held accountable. Sounds reasonable and rational enough, right? If the harm you cause can be overcome then there should be no accountability for you.

[@D00kerT]

Thinking about myself getting pulled over, I can say that the majority of the times I'm pulled over the officer does not address me as "Sir". Some cops don't give a shit. However, I haven't of blacks complaining about that. I can't see how anyone, regardless of their race, can attribute that to racism.

[@Srpicklez]

I have a hard time understanding John's reason for not wanting to have this sort of conversation at the Pangburn event. I think he has wonderful insight into this conversation and would be a valuable speaker. Especially if it essentially at some point turns into another episode of this conversation but with Coleman Hughes.

[@craftlocust]

First I've seen of this gentleman so all throughout the talk before I looked at the video description, I kept thinking, "Is that Don Lemon's dad?"

[@darrengreen9273]

I like this McWhorter guy!! Kudos BRO.

[@thetruthfacts7272]

Love you guys. I will share with you though that many of Glen's examples of racism happen to white people as well. Many times as a white couple we have been ignored by a hostess, a bar tender, a salesman. I'm shocked that you identify it immediately as a race thing. More often than not people suck at their job and are incompetent.

[@AlNewkirk]

Love Glenn and John; a fan of some of Jordan Peterson's positions, definitely not a fanboy. I don't think Jordan has ever explicitly said that he can tell when someone's being disingenuous and that his position and willingness to accommodate someone is based on that ability. I found that bit of the conversation to be a misrepresentation. The self-congratulating, self-aggrandizing, cheerleading, was a little cringe (shrugs).

[@willw6196]

It'd be good to see John McWhorter and Jordan Peterson have a discussion

[@SLIDESPOT]

hold on, being a bartender for 10 years I can say that sometimes customers get forgotten, black white Chinese whatever. it happens as well I have been ignored by waiters or bartenders, I have left restaurants because of the neglect of service.

[@earthangel2524]

Micro and deadly agressions are not just against POC. Ask any 80-year-old-woman if people patronize or ignore her? Check the stats on police violence against intellectually disabled people. It's all bad and should be fixed. Yes! But to put a chip on the shoulder of the violated and defamed only adds to their burden.

[@MoSec9]

I don't have a man bun, but I do have an NPR mug. Yet I've been listening to you and I agree with lots of what you say. May be what we need is to stop trying to categorize people in such cartoonish way. NPR is about the closest thing to news we have left in this country. I don't have to buy everything, but I get more news and less talking heads interpreting for me.

[@stephenmerriman5620]

Where is part one please?

[@ahighhorseman]

great talk

[@sailorforlifebestti3366]

I am sure these two professor's discounting/devaluing of the value of the "micro-aggressions" they encounter time and time again makes them feel 'evolved' or "arrived". Thats cute. But I can't help wonder if a day laborers' encounter with micro-aggressions affect him the same way. This is the problem w/ the conservative mind. There is a certain blockage of creativity that does not allow them to imagine.

[@02122_]

Sailorforlife BESTTI They’re both liberals. Their point is that for every day laborer there’s at least one college student or corporate employee for whom such microaggressions are more nuisance than life-defining, inescapable cloud of racism. They are criticizing the, in their view, excessive value many leftist places on microaggressions; they’re not labeling those microaggressions valueless. That’s not a specifically conservative observation.

[@Scrubbzzy]

Love the show

[@andrewilliamson4926]

Interesting point about needing to genuflect. When I think about it, ironically, this requirement (for the audience not to pre-judge you) reflects the bigotry of those who require it.

[@DonOneDetroit]

These two -- given that most of us spend more hours at work than anywhere else and, given that neither has held "corporate American" job for any meaningful duration of time and given that they live and work on or near a college campus (the most liberal settings/environment possible), how can they possibly understand the true ramifications of racism experienced by the average African-American? Yet they run their mouths with this "Get Over Racism" non-sense. Oh BTW, they've made their entire careers on spouting this crap to differentiate themselves from the average black person -- it pays well to do nothing but "Talk Shit" particularly if you comfort the oppressors in a white supremacist society. One dude teaches linguistics, doesn't have any children (never even attempted to adopt an African-American child yet he's an expert on how we can overcome racism through discipline academics --WTF?!?

[@MrBeachMadness]

I've made that delivery man mistake loads of times. Not based on race, but on the crappy way everyone dresses. it's hard to tell the delivery people from the regular people.

[@mikeice38]

Keep going it's working!

[@nebwachamp]

I come for the subject matter... I stayed for theintesting intricate intelligent freindship

[@chrisfrenette91]

im curious what john means when he says Peterson is "kind of sinister"

[@Blaine748]

I suspect Peterson’s experiential claim “to be willing to live w/the consequences of possibly being wrong in addressing transgenders”, is based on his particular training as a *behavioral* psychologist to study a person’s behavior thoroughly enough before deciding whether or not they’re being truthful in their speech and genuine in their attitude.

[@teaseaboywonder]

I suspect that when the decision is made to agree or disagree with a request to use a particular pronoun there is not enough time or information available to "study a person's behavior thoroughly". To assume any person or any psychologist can walk into a room and assign intentions to people is akin to believing in the power to read minds. It's ridiculous. It's another example of Peterson attempting to be all things to all people. On the one hand he honors requests of all transgender people, but only the real ones. The ones that have intentions that are not pure will not be honored. Peterson is right to be suspicious of the intentions of some people and their requests, but pretending he can divine those intentions in a social setting upon meeting someone is his attempt to avoid admitting that he is going to be wrong a significant percentage of the time, or an attempt to avoid admitting that he errs on the side of social caution and almost always, if not always, honors requests for particular pronoun usage. It's a trick. He has many. He's right about a lot of things, too. People are complex and best not idolized.

[@sinistermephisto65]

Wow! I would like to see you actually have a long convo with Joe Rogan or Peterson. Both of you are interesting

[@jeremybentham5037]

Listened to Glenn Loury's podcast with Sam Harris. His tone and discussion with Sam seemed almost diametrically opposed to the conversations he has on this channel.

[@newmediarules]

Skywalker 1138 I have noticed that about Glenn in general. He's very jovial w/close friends and family. More defensive with others. And if he's the interviewee, he's even less amicable.

[@teaseaboywonder]

On his podcast Glenn Loury immerses himself in the role of steel-manning the counterpoint. Also, Sam Harris and Glenn Loury find themselves on opposite sides of the political center on most issues. Even though it was awkward and at times not pleasant to listen to, Glenn did Sam a favor by challenging some of his preconceived ideas on race and Sam has admitted as much.

[@magacashmoney4751]

Great episode. I love these guys. But also I'm a lobster

[@thomassimmons1950]

Civil behavior in the U.S. has been deteriorating for at least 50 years. White, black, young, old, rich, poor; I have been disrespected by all these categories at one time or another, and it's only getting worse. I wish it were as simple as race, but I hate to break it too you: America has become a nasty place for E-V-E-R-B-O-D-Y...end of story.

[@koko4u2luv]

Are you serious, Thomas? Did you forget how black people who crossed the 'color line' were treated during the era of segregation?

[@thomascummings7589]

With all the respect in the world for John, Jordan Peterson’s answer to his question I thought was quite sufficient. Jordan Peterson stated that he would take the risk and the consequences for making that judgment call about whether someone was grandstanding regarding their pronouns or whether they were sincere. He did not claim that he could magically tell who was doing what, but we do all know that we have some capacity to detect who is bullshitting us and who is not. We all know thatThis detection mechanism is not perfect. But the most important thing Peterson said was that he could be wrong he could be right but he believed in the long run the truth of him not standing up to somebody grandstanding him would be worse than the effects of him calling somebody out for his perceived grandstanding. Let me reiterate he was trying to make a judgment which he understands is not perfect, that being do you allow someone to seize the narrative for their political ends, or do you call BS on what you perceive to be BS and take the risk, and take the consequences which he was fully willing to do. I think this is a reasonable position and this allows us to move the truth narrative forward. And not allowed to people who are in control of a bad narrative to keep running rough shot over the rest of us by threatening us with their grandstanding. I think this shows a little bit of John’s inability to remove himself from the situation, when I believe that Jordan had a perfectly reasonable and laudable explanation for his rationale. Again I say that with the upmost respect to John.

[@rainmaker6261]

Glenn, are you on the run from the law? Why are you shrouding yourself in darkness? Production did you dirty.

[@kyreshlcsw2229]

I think is family therapy. Let the family work it out.

[@roothogordie1451]

I've been following you two lots longer than Eric Weinstein or other members of the "Intellectual Dark Web," and I think you discovered the value of long-form discourse at about the same time as Peterson, maybe earlier. In any case, Loury and McWhorter have standing in this narrative, and I encourage you both to continue throwing down forthrightly as you have been doing. Your audience will find you. There is, indeed, something afoot.

[@philibusters]

My thoughts, I have only gotten the chance to listen to the first 30 minutes so far... 0:51 Revisiting the “Starbucks and swimming pool” problem My two thoughts on these micro-aggressions incidents are 1) It shows the progress of the last 50 years since the end of the Civil Rights Movements on expectations of people's behavior. Even after the civil rights movement, none of these micro-aggressions would have been deemed worthy by the media of public discussion. Maybe a black sitcom would have portrayed this soft bigotry in an episode and certainly within black communities some of these incidents may have provoked discussion, but nationally expectations about white behavior are a lot higher today than they were in 1968 or 1978.Secondly I am not sure how much changing expectations of white people's behavior has achieved. To extent it has changed behavior the campaign has changed behavior in a good way. However, none of these changes really benefit people living in inner cities slums (nor for that matter the black rural poor). In terms of magnitude of conditions and suffering endured by black people that is by far the top issue. The microaggressions faced by the black middle class while unfair should take second place to what happens in inner cities and the economic issues. Further as these campaigns to change expectations of white behavior succeed, it just leads to diminishing returns because the incidents become less and less frequent and the behavior trying to be modified more and more marginal. If the Civil Rights Movement spends another 50 years focusing the bulk of its resources on fighting racism (mainly in middle class environments like restaurants, pools, college dorms, sporting events, et cetera) the returns for the investment will be small and it won't do anything to help those living in the worst conditions. 12:27 A new soft bigotry of low expectations? As a white person its hard for me to comment on it, but it sounds plausible. The expectations that are the most meaningful are friends and families expectations of us. So in order for the low expectations of institutions like universities to really have an effect, to some extent black people would have to internalize those low expectations. 22:10 Glenn: Some so-called microaggressions are in fact justifiedIn fairness to Glenn I don't know if he said they are justified. It seemed his point was that they are rational. When something is justified it has a certain moral authority. When something is rational--its understandable why the behavior occurred even if its not morally justified. Humans always act within contexts and in certain contexts it is rational to worried about ones safety and health and its rational when one is worried about ones health and safety to profile people to try to identify danger. That is what it is. Where I live in Hampton Roads, Virginia a house in the predominant black downtown areas costs $35,000. Which makes it a terrific investment as potential Section 8 housing. And right now I am looking at purchasing a couple units because the potential return on investment is outstanding. I buy a 3 bedroom unit for $35,000 and can potentially rent it out for as much as $850 per month (the Section 8 inspector grades the condition of your house and Section 8 will authorize anywhere between $700 and $850 for a 3 bedroom depending on what grade it received). As a middle class white person I don't mind going to look at the properties and meet the current tenants as an investor or showing the property during the day and what not (within the inner cities some streets are still a lot nicer and safer than others), but at the same time, I would be nervous to go out there late at night even if the property is not located on a particular bad street. And that is because even if the street the property located on doesn't have a lot of armed robberies, one street over may have a lot of armed robberies just in the past 12 months. Further the vast majority of these armed robberies occur at night (not during the day). Is my nervousness justified? In the sense that is morally justified--then no my apprehension is not justified. But at the same time its fairly rational and as such even if you swapped me out with a really liberal white guy with a man bun hairdo, he'd let feel the same apprehension even if he didn't want to admit it.

[@johnbarnesNnaptown]

If you're not anti-racism what are you?

[@eboulter]

What's a po-boy?

[@chbrules]

You two completely misrepresented the issue in regards to your question to JBP at the Aspen Institute talk. He has a personal mechanism by which to attempt to judge the intentions of those that approach him in regards to requesting the use of gender pronouns. His training and experience in psychological sessions with others probably gives him useful learned cues in attempting to deconstruct people's intentions. That's not something he can explain to you at a talk from a question. You two have ignorantly misportrayed him in this light.

[@teaseaboywonder]

yeah, ya ignoramuses. JBP can read people's minds. He can't explain that to you in a few sentences. Only this dude can. Blasphemers you are.

[@karriewick]

What I fear, Glenn, is that if things continue to go the direction they "seem" to be headed that non-Black people are not going to have the time to ask the questions. They are going to see you coming, and because of recent history in their personal lives they are going to have to make decisions that could have turned out to be wrong, but we will never know that, because that person may, for example, have just had his elderly father bashed over the head by a "toned" person in a random act of reparations.

[@rainafortini5797]

Let me offer up to John that I might be able to make his wish come true. Because I am white and my experience with a Racism is not traditionally what people expect, and because I was so emotionally tortured for years by my LCD neighbors for a multitude of reasons I did record it every day. I put it on KZbin for reasons that now may not make sense as easily as they did back then but... you need to see the black female marine life card come after me because of my swimming costume, she ends up totally pulling an Amy Cooper over the phone with her boss who ends up calling the police and they lied to them saying that I pulled her arm something like that nothing ever happened from it but it’s an awful thing to go through.... also a Starbucks in Mohegan Lake New York where the employees were predominantly African-American, this is a longer story I’ll tell you if you are interested but long story short they created at least three fake police reports that I know of, in fact didn’t even find out until the third one so that they could have me banned from the store. I believe it’s just because they felt like I was an old annoying caring type customer, Who is picky about how I wanted to not have to pay for 4 ounces of soy milk again I don’t expect you to even read this but it would be pretty awesome if you found any value to this ridiculous exercise I spent almost 27 years with the camera on my shoulder because I was beaten up by a black cop in the New York City subway in 1993 it didn’t occur to me at the time that it was racist, although she made it very clear she thought I was “soft“ I put it on KZbin because my neighbors were constantly creating false police reports with my name literally as entertainment and obviously I can’t tell you years of stories here but the way I edit it all together is pretty amateur and didn’t really do me a whole Lotta good as a matter of fact the condo board who rented to these heroin dealers, and gun dealers, created a $26,000 fine out of the blue and within a matter of months made a deal with my family that I had to get out or they would make good on the lien they put on the property and it would all be lost. Because I refuse to take my videos down from KZbin and everybody thinks I’m crazy for not doing it but I was trying to make a point anyway it’s just kind of funny that the title of this is swimming pools and Starbucks I feel like you’ve seen my very does already... if on the slim chance you do see this and you take a peek please don’t judge me? I am not crazy just deeply deeply overwhelmed and depressed by one horrible thing after another all either directly or indirectly related to race....

[@DerekFullerWhoIsGovt]

I like clean water. Flint is a Macro aggression me thinks. When it was time to pick a lab partner in my school, those white boys literally ran from me.

[@DerekFullerWhoIsGovt]

Jonas Pell : Your retort Oddly admits the need for reparations if seen in the accurate context.

[@DerekFullerWhoIsGovt]

Jonas Pell why are white peoples so stupid when it comes to clean water?

[@DerekFullerWhoIsGovt]

@Jonas Pell it was better before Europeans showed up.

[@neuroculdesac1]

I love to listen to both of these two towering intellectuals speak, but this episode has had me mulling over the discussion around "genuflecting" for the past few days. I truly wonder if they're not generalizing all black people's experience of racism from only their own personal experience with racism. John says he experiences racist incidents maybe two-three times a year, and that he expects, if people really examine it, that other black people do as well; that it's their victimhood lens that's warping their interpretation of those interactions. Well, obviously, that would be true of him -- he is an eloquent and cogent speaker, and a well-known public intellectual; his experience with other people is obviously going to be more pleasant than 99% of the people who are not him. Every one of the anecdotes these two gentlemen spoke about had the following beats: people treat them poorly because they're black, but then as soon as they spoke, assumptions were subverted, and were treated well. What happens if you speak and assumptions are not subverted? Most people don't have the effect that John and Glenn have on others, nor the credentials to back it up. Nothing either says suggests that they recognize that their experience with racism is atypical. Furthermore, when people ask him, "Do you know that racism exists?" it's ungenerous to take that question at face value. No one is suggesting that he hasn't heard of Travyon Martin or racist incidents at swimming pools. My interpretation of this question is, do you recognize that you might experience this issue differently from us? Moreover, if he is aware of them, why doesn't he ever speak about it sympathetically WHILE arguing his position? The way he talks about genuflecting so that others will listen is patronizing and so disingenuous, and far less compassionate than for the police who he says we should just assume "got up on the wrong side of the bed." I agree with almost everything these men say. People need to rectify or pay penance for their errors; we shouldn't lower standards for society to accommodate those unwilling or incapable of meeting them, and instead empower those people to meet those standards; and we should certainly not attribute every unpleasant interaction to race. But this discussion made me question whether John and Glenn can, or make an effort to, see beyond their own rarefied experiences.

[@santibanks]

55:30 While Jordan dodged the question a bit, it doesn't seem to far of a stretch to still take his word for it. All Jordan is pointing out is that he's able to spot the real deal from the ones with hidden agendas. If you deal with transgender people in your practice, you will gain experience and see behavioural patterns which you will recognise in other people you deal with. Maybe those are not so well defined from a scientific point of view (and that might be why Peterson dodges the question) but they might work well enough for the job it needs to do. But in a broader perspective, the context Jordan made such a remark has to do with the difference in transgender people preferring a certain pronoun because they have a "honest" motif for it, rooted in something psychoanalytic and transgender people who are on the post-Modernist bandwagon and just want to exercise power over you by forcing you to compelled speech. To be honest, you don't need to be a clinical psychiatrist to distinguish the two. The post-Modernist are easy to pick out in such a situation.

[@frostfox1208]

As a white male, I have been ignored by a waiter. Not sure why. A little more common in New York. Perhaps two or three times a year.

[@julieredmond5192]

I’m nuts about you two guys!! You both are already in the IDW as far as I’m concerned. I twittered and Facebooked this video to Jordan Peterson. It’s the first tweet I have ever made. I also tweeted it to author Gregg Hurwitz. I recommended you two Dr.’s for the long-form discussions they propose in the following video. Check this out: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJucf3iBntipeJY

[@ecantu2600]

I'm a bigger fan of McWhorter than I am of Peterson, but I must say that both of you straw-man Peterson a bit here. Peterson did not evade the question; he answered very clearly very early: he said he couldn't really know. He then went on to make a great point about the implications of this answer, which was directly responsive to what seemed to be the real issue John was raising. Here's the exchange: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJTZcpZ7iKyAp9k

[@michaelparsons3007]

John is right about Peterson followers.

[@maharsi]

John is caught in a performative contradiction with one of his criticisms of Jordan Peterson. He asked Jordan how he knew whether someone is "sincere or not," and he is skeptical that Jordan can know about anyone's intentionality. A fair question, but how does John know that Jordan is "kind of sinister"? This presumes that John understands Jordan's intentionality, which he doesn't -- and which he claims a psychologist can't be a judge of either. So while the question was fair, the comment that Jordan is sinister is not.

[@bofbob1]

Not at all. "Sinister" does not require one to know the intention of the person the adjective is qualifying. More often than not, it describes a feeling, a way something is perceived. A "sinister howl" heard in the dead of night doesn't tell you anything about the intent of what or who was howling. It just tells you something about how that howl was perceived.

[@maharsi]

The first definition in the American Heritage dictionary, where John is or at least was on the usage panel, is as follows: "a. Suggesting or threatening harm or evil: a sinister smile. b. Causing or intending harm or evil; wicked: a sinister conspiracy." Both of these definitions imply an insight into intentionality, the first implicitly, the second explicitly. ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=sinister

[@bofbob1]

Yeah, to me he's using the first definition. And I see a very big difference between that and claiming to know what is in a person's head. The difference clear if you adapt John's question. "How do you know this man suggests harm or evil?" Answering that question doesn't require knowing anything that's going on in that person's head. It'd be like asking "how do you know he's ugly?" or "how do you know he's threatening?" Different ballgame altogether. If you want to turn this into an epistemological clusterfuck, I suppose you could ask me "how do I know he's using that definition of sinister?" And I could ask you the same. ^^

[@maharsi]

John did not present that comment as a perception; he presented it as a fact. He said, "Yeah, he's kind of sinister," without presenting any evidence to back it up or qualifying it as a perception or in any other way. Whether it is the first or second definition I presented -- which are (a) and (b) of definition 1 -- it implies an insight into intentionality. With the first, there is a suggestion or threat of harm. The smile itself is not capable of evil; it is the person behind it who is thought to be capable of evil.

[@bofbob1]

And what do you think "a suggestion of harm" means? You understand in what sense the term "suggest" is being used here right? It's used in the same way as, say, "his wrinkled face suggested he was well into his 80s". No volition or intention required. The very term sinister (and the first definition) qualifies it as a perception. You can add further caveats (for instance, he seemed sinister) but they are not necessary. Anyways, this discussion is pointless. There is no necessary performative contradiction here. And I have very little doubt that if John answered you he would say something similar to what I'm saying (i.e. that when he says Peterson is kind of sinister, he's not making any claim to know what's going on in his head). The best solution for you would probably be to not jump the gun and actually ask him if he's claiming to know Peterson's intention or not. Anyways, this isn't going to lead anywhere interesting. We're both wasting our time. Cheers.

[@postpaal]

Interesting as always. Not sure why John McWhorter argues about not going to the Philosophy Conference because of not wanting to be the "alibi" (too much mind reading). He should be there for the audience, and maybe enlighten people to some interesting points of views.... Only really good reason to not go is "can't be bothered" and "have better things to do at home" which we all can understand :-). How about the conference debate something else than race? Even if John McWhorter thinks Peterson is sinister.....Seems to me Jordan Peterson is "preaching" the same thing you guys are (maybe to different parts of society by chance but doesn't have to be): Young men needs to "take responsibility" for their own lives... Apart from that he's fighting against the excesses of leftism in the academics...and probably would have done the same if there currently where right wing excesses in the academics. not that I know Jordan Peterson in any depth...

[@DobrieLov]

These microaggressions wear me out, just an excuse to accuse someone of being racist over anything at any time. Here in San Francisco/Oakland people were being called racist if they pulled their bag closer to their body when a teen dressed like "a thug" walked by. Obviously you can't judge someone just on their fashion, but let's not pretend like "thug" culture doesn't exist, and some of these kids (they're not all black kids anyway) legit do think it's cool to mug, pickpocket, etc. So I say when it's something like that, go ahead and be "racist" to protect yourself and your stuff.

[@estebannemo1957]

It makes me angry that these 2 fine gentlemen have "elevator" or "poor boy" stories to tell.

[@JSStuart100]

The greater lady might have been racist but what would she have been if the white giuy were black and it went down exactly the same way? You would’ve thought she just preferred the other black guy maybe he was a little more handsome whatever but it wouldn’t of been racism. You defaulted to its racism because the guys white and you were black but she could’ve just made an Honest mistake thinking the keynote speaker for that event at that time was a white guy. I believe someone can show bias when it’s actually classicism or culturalism Or just have a preference for one way or another and it gets blamed on racism.

[@MsFreshadenu]

1:03:41 bahaha

[@umwha]

This is woke (in the legitimate sense) as hell!!!

[@Jim-cs9yp]

Glenn and John: I hope you see this comment. Have Jordan Peterson on. You two have the same audience as Jordan, and you guys insulted him a bit in this video by calling him “sinister”. Whether you like it or not, you’re in the same crowd as JP, in the sense that you’re heterodox. Many of your fans are JP fans. Your audience deserves a podcast that features you three, and I want to see you bring an example to Jordan of when he’s been “sinister”. Love listening you guys, but that was cheap. By the way, you have “fanboys” yourselves. Just look at the KZbin comments gushing over you two. That includes some of my comments. Sincerely, One of your “fanboys”

[@Blaine748]

John... I think you’re definitely within functional boundaries of the IDW. You’re counter narrative, nuanced, and data driven enough.

[@MsJazbren]

Paused at 35:03 to add that I too 'train' (or teach, rather) my kids on how to deal with the police. And firefighters and paramedics too. We are Caucasian. I teach them that police officers are almost always trustworthy, and how to handle a situation with one that may not be. I teach them not to run, or fight back, if they are being arrested, even if they are innocent. Get to the police station, alive and in one piece, and sort the situation out there. I also teach them about the rights THEY have, and the responsibilities that the police have when dealing with civilians. I teach them to do what a firefighter says in an emergency situation. They know more about fires and car accidents than most people do, and will do their best to get you out of that situation safely. Don't put more people in danger with your own stupidity. Likewise, ambos are there to help. Do what they ask, and be polite. As a final point, these are not long lectures that I deliver every time we see a police car. They are simply topics that I discuss as and when they are pertinent - when the subject comes up, when they ask a question, or when we read a story in the news, etc. And they're as much a part of raising kids as teaching them to brush their teeth, how to use a washing machine, and not to throw water on an electrical fire. People should know how to deal with the police. Almost everyone has to at some point.

[@bertrandrussell894]

It is a real shame John isn't going. He needs to show solidarity with those who want to challenge this altogether bleak narrative people like Coats are successfully peddling. He underestimates how important he is.