A recent episode of Glenn Lourie's podcast occurred in the NY comedy club, The Cellar. The conversation was started by academics and thinkers including Glenn Loury, Roland Fryer and Coleman Hughes. Once under way, the comedians entered the conversation and many interesting things were spoken. Oh, and many of those interesting (and serious) things were hilarious. The comedians included Andrew Schulz, Judy Gold, Shane Gillis, T.J., Rick Crom, Nikki Jax and Sam Jay. Definitely worth an hour and a half of your time. I love hearing comedians talking shop and that is a lot of the conversation. There is another main theme, however. Can the comedians save us from cancel culture and wokeness?
I have enjoyed watching Jon Stewart over the years and looked forward to this conversation involving Jon Stewart and Andrew Sullivan. It was not what I expected. It was not a conversation at all. On these issues of race, Stewarts exhibits absolutely no sense of nuance, no curiosity regarding the statistical evidence pertaining to the issues and no interest in tamping down the shrill racist declarations of a second guest, a woman named Lisa Bond. I'd recommend that you watch two videos before reading further. The first is Stewart's introductory "comedy skit" regarding racism. The second involves the "conversation" with Andrew Sullivan.
Jon Stewart’s insistence that Americans had never robustly debated race before 2020 is also, well, deranged. Americans have been loudly debating it for centuries. There was something called a Civil War over it. His claim that white America has never done anything in defense of black Americans (until BLM showed up, of course) requires him to ignore more than 300,000 white men who gave their lives to defeat the slaveholding Confederacy. It requires Stewart to ignore the countless whites (often Jewish) who risked and gave their lives in the Civil Rights Movement. It requires him to erase the greatest president in American history. This glib dismissal of all white Americans throughout history, even those who risked everything to expand equality, is, when you come to think about it, obscene.
Stewart’s claim that whites never tried to ameliorate black suffering until now requires him to dismiss over $19 trillion of public funds spent in the long War on Poverty, focused especially on black Americans. That’s the equivalent of more than 140 Marshall Plans. As Samuel Kronen has shown, it requires the erasure from history of “the Food Stamp Act of 1964, the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, the Social Security Amendments of 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the Social Security Amendments of 1962, and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, and on and on.” To prove his point, Stewart has to pretend LBJ never existed. That’s how utterly lost he now is.
Stewart then used crude metrics of inequality to argue, Kendi-style, without any evidence, that the only thing that can possibly explain racial inequality today in America is still “white supremacy.” Other factors — concentrated poverty, insanely high rates of crime and violence, acute family breakdown, a teen culture that equates success with whiteness, lack of affordable childcare — went either unmentioned or openly mocked as self-evident expressions of bigotry. He then equated formal legal segregation with voluntary residential segregation, as if Jim Crow were still in force. And he straw-manned the countering argument thus: white America believes that African-Americans are “solely responsible for their community’s struggles.”
I don’t know anyone who believes that. I sure don’t. It’s much more complex than that. And it’s that complexity that some of us are insisting on — and that Stewart wants to dismiss out of hand in favor of his own Manichean moral preening. His final peroration ended thus: “America has always prioritized white comfort over black survival.” Note: always. There has been no real progress; white people have never actually listened to a black person; America is irredeemably racist. Those fucking white men, Lincoln and LBJ, never gave a shit.
What is stunningly obvious about Stewart's rant (and all Woke rants) is the lack of ideas for how to fix the problems they point to (and many of them are legitimate concerns). It's all theatrical virtue-signaling that refuses look at actually problems and solutions. For instance, what are some real-life changes we could implement that would actually result in inner-city minorities getting better math and reading skills? There is also a consistent refusal by these Woke performers to look at relevant data. Look what happened to Roland Fryer when he looked at real numbers and urged real solutions. Look at what happened to Steven Pinker.
For excellent analysis of Stewart's rant, see the [upcoming for non-subscribers] episode of The Fifth Column podcast "The Problem with Jon Stewart." Analysis begins about minute 23 and runs for an entire hour.
[Added April 3, 2022]
There are many Woke-inspired "conversations" like this and most of them are deficient and misleading in the same way. They talk a lot about average, as though every "black"* person is the average person, when that is wildly false. The "average" encompasses a wide distribution of people, many of whom are quite successful along with those who are struggling. In fact, 60% of "black" people are middle class or above. Why don't they discuss the many successful "black" people? And why don't they ask what the successful "black" people are doing that unsuccessful "black" people are not doing? And why don't they discuss what unsuccessful "black people are doing that unsuccessful "white" people are also doing? Such discussions simply don't help their narrative, which is that every "black" person in modern American is constantly victimized by racism perpetuated by every "white" person.
*I am no longer going to use the terms "white" and "black" to refer to groups of people. The willingness to categorize people by "color" is the first step onto the slippery slope of racism. There is definitely racism in the U.S., but there is no such thing as "race." We can tamp down the former if we stop categorizing people (of any "color") in this crude, baseless and dangerous way. For more on my refusal to categorize people as colors, see this article on Dr. Sheena Mason and see this article holding that "race" has no more validity than astrology. When people ask for my astrological sign, I tell them that the are engaged in a nonsensical thinking. Same thing whenever people categorize each other by color or "race." Mason adheres to a theory of gracelessness, which she backs up with her own theory of gracelessness, which is a methodological and pedagogical interpretive and teaching framework for "how to analyze race and racism across time and place." She discusses her threory at length in the video below, starting at Min 14:
Bari Weiss recently interviewed David Sachs on Common Sense, Bari's Substack. It is an excellent discussion of issues you will not see in legacy media outlets, who would like to see alternative media competition crushed. Here's an excerpt:
BW: The criticism that I hear a ton in response to what you're saying is: David, these are private companies. If I invent YouTube and I pay for the servers of YouTube and I've set up the whole architecture of the company, why can't I do what I want? Same with Facebook. Why don't I get to decide that I don't want some kind of clickbait or fake news or whatever on my thing? I'm going to police it. Who are you to tell me I can't?
DS: I think it's a very disingenuous argument. The same people who say that these social media companies, these big tech companies, should be free to do whatever they want because they're private companies are the same people pushing six bills through Congress right now to restrict and regulate those companies because they see them as monopolies. So they don't even believe their own argument. They all start making these libertarian arguments when these big tech companies are restricting speech in a way that they like. When they agree with the outcome, they want to give these companies the freedom to produce that outcome.
We need to fundamentally understand that free speech in our society has been privatized. The town square has been privatized. When the Constitution was written, the internet didn't exist. Back then, the town square was a physical place that you could go to, and there was a multiplicity of town squares all over the country. There were thousands of them and anybody could put their soapbox down and speak, and anyone could gather around and listen. That’s why, if you look at the First Amendment, it doesn't just protect freedom of speech and of the press. It also protects the right to peaceably assemble.
Well, where do people assemble today? They assemble in these giant social networks that have these gigantic network effects. That is where speech, especially political speech, occurs. And if you are shut out of that digital town square, to what extent do you still even have a First Amendment? To what extent do you have a right to speech? Well, I don't think you do. If you were to grab your soapbox today and go on the courthouse steps, they'll think you're a lunatic. You have no free speech right in this country if you are kicked off of these social networks.
So, I don't think it's good enough to say, well, these are private actors and, therefore, they can do whatever they want. Those private actors have too much power. They have the power to decide whether you, as an American, have an effective free speech right in this country. I think that's unacceptable. I think the Founders, the Framers of the Constitution, would never have permitted that.
...
BW: What do you say to the people who argue: If you don't like the way YouTube conducts itself, if you don't like the way Facebook conducts itself, no problem. Go make another one. Why is that not an acceptable solution to this problem?
DS: This is what you heard when Twitter and Facebook banned Trump. Their argument was: Go to a different app. And then Apple and Google banned Parler, which was the different app. And then the argument was, Well, that's not censorship. Just go create a website. And then Amazon Web Services started banning websites. So, at some point, when are you going to say this is an undue imposition on free speech? What am I supposed to do? Go create my own internet? All I wanted to do was post a tweet. Let’s not be obtuse to the power of these monopolies. I think people are being selectively oblivious to the network effects.
BW: We hear that phrase a lot: network effects. What does it mean?
DS: A network-effect business is one where the value of the service increases with the number of users. So if you think about Twitter or Facebook or the phone company, the more people who are on the service, the more value it has to everybody else. The value actually increases exponentially because the number of connections that can be made increases exponentially every time someone joins the service. If you or I want to create our own Twitter clone, it'll be very, very hard to do that because nobody else will be on it. So you have this huge chicken and egg problem. This is why these social networks are so powerful. They’ve got these huge network effects based on the fact that everybody is already on them, and it gets very, very hard to try and create a competing one.
Who are these people? Here's one tell: You will not find them on the streets actually helping to improve the people they claim they care about. You will not find them in the kinds of colleges that most people attend. You won't find them inviting open-ended discussions with the people they disagree with.
Tara Henley tells us more about the Identitarian Left, whether you call them this or whether you call them Woke Moralists or Social Justice Warriors or whatever:
One term I’ve heard lately that’s helpful in unpacking the new left is “identitarian moralism.” This phrase captures the new left’s puritanical thrust and quasi-religious fervour, along with its festishization of identity, while also signaling its ability to shape-shift to take up the Twitter cause du jour, whether that happens to be pandemic public health policies or, this week, recasting Madeleine Albright as some sort of feminist icon. What remains consistent, across all fronts, is a strident illiberalism.
Let’s be clear: If you do not agree with the new left’s list of approved narratives, it one hundred percent expects you to keep your mouth shut (or, alternatively, to “do the work” of “listening and learning,” ideally on Instagram, so that you can be shunned and shamed in as public a manner as possible).
The goal of the new left is, in fact, explicitly to shut down debate of any ideas deemed “harmful,” so as not to perpetuate the harm. This unfortunately leads to an endless parade of bad faith arguments, since the goal is never to make sense or persuade people, but rather to bring discussions to an abrupt halt.
It also leaves a great number of people politically homeless.
It used to be that I was the one furthest to the left in any newsroom, occasionally causing strain in story meetings with my views on issues like the housing crisis. I am now easily the most conservative, frequently sparking tension by questioning identity politics. This happened in the span of about 18 months. My own politics did not change.
To work at the CBC in the current climate is to embrace cognitive dissonance and to abandon journalistic integrity.
It is to sign on, enthusiastically, to a radical political agenda that originated on Ivy League campuses in the United States and spread through American social media platforms that monetize outrage and stoke societal divisions. It is to pretend that the “woke” worldview is near universal — even if it is far from popular with those you know, and speak to, and interview, and read.
To work at the CBC now is to accept the idea that race is the most significant thing about a person, and that some races are more relevant to the public conversation than others. It is, in my newsroom, to fill out racial profile forms for every guest you book; to actively book more people of some races and less of others.
To work at the CBC is to submit to job interviews that are not about qualifications or experience — but instead demand the parroting of orthodoxies, the demonstration of fealty to dogma.
Here is an excerpt from Jacob Siegel's excellent article at Tablet, "Invasion of the Fact-Checkers: Who are you going to believe, the Democratic Party’s new official-unofficial, public-private monopoly tech platform censorship brigade, or your misinformed, disinformed eyes?":
The industrial fact-checking complex is not a debate society or a branch of science pursuing the truth wherever it leads. It’s an institutional fixture with hundreds of millions of dollars in funding behind it, along with battalions of NGOs and formerly broke journalistic authorities who are more than happy to cash fat checks and proclaim that America’s ruling bureaucrats at the FDA, the CDC, the FBI, the CIA, the Fed—and the entire alphabet soup of government agencies—along with the ruling Democratic Party, are never wrong about anything, at least nothing important.
Which is not to say that the fact-checkers are inflexible. The opposite is true. A matter settled this month with a single link and a few hand-picked quotes in favor of Truthful Federal Bureaucrat X or Noble Ruling Party Flesh Puppet Y can easily be resettled a few months later with different links if the political winds shift, by revising the record of the past without ever acknowledging errors of judgment or fact.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
