The economist talks to Hamish McKenzie about life as a contrarian, dealing with a dark history, and the importance of talking to people who disagree with you
Having a conversation with those who think differently than you is good. At least you are talking. The problem is when truth is spoken those speaking the truth are thrown under the bus.
I would argue less about Truth and more about different Perspectives. And Today’s America is less tolerant of anyone’s opinions that differ from than their own.
This tendendancy of the Blob to throw people under the bus does give us the opportunity to prove that truth exists and what truth is. For example, with the recently passed Antisemitism Awareness Act, besides creating perverse incentives, it isn't about making an ignorant crack against seculars, its about claiming that seculars work together as a group more effectively and actually control Congress, banking, media and Hollywood. To prohibit one specific example of a 'conspiracy theory' when there are a hundred other conspiracy theories around is strong evidence that Truth is Powerful. Also, in other circumstances, the very same seculars boast about how they control these entities -and that's OK!
(Btw I'm sorry if inappropriate to mention other than GL. But to me (living in Denmark and having no connection whatsoever beside interest personally and academically) - Glenn is (and John McW too), along with Jordan B Peterson among those who set a not only scholarly but also personal example for me.
Their integrity, courage, and ability to try to dissect their arguments and contra debate it (with themselves).
And the willingness to change their stand if they are provided with sufficiently convincing evidence.
That's an incredible ability, way too few has (I'd like to think I've got some of it too but I guess you don't really know until you are in the situation, at least im trying).
What’s so striking is that Loury has found a way to speak his truth boldly, while remaining open to others and their ideas and having the courage so rare now a days to change his mind. This country is so polarized, but I feel there is more discourse rising up about compassion, dialogue and openness. This gives me hope for our future.
I LOVE Loury. A sage voice of reason among a sea of identity politics insanity. He and McWhorter tell it like it is. Contrarians, yes, but more important, critical thinkers. And he’s honest; I think that’s the major draw for me. Been listening to his podcast for years now.
I forgot about his past struggle with cocaine addiction. I’m 12 years sober myself. I just published an essay on my SS, “Sincere American Writing,” called, “Sobriety and Wokeism are Diametrically Opposed to Each Other: Why 12-step Recovery and Social Justice Warriors Collide.” Some here might be interested.
But anyway--Thank god for educated, honest intellectuals like Loury and McWhorter, especially when discussing the slippery, Orwellian concept of race in contemporary times.
Thank you. If “We the People” allow main stream to divide us to the point of NO communication it WILL become much easier for THEM to conquer US! Sheep or Patriot, that is the question. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I can agree that we ALL come from the Creator and as such we have “ inalienable rights”. Let’s start with what we have in common, love of family, love of community and love of Country!
Hey Glenn, I sincerely appreciate your honesty, transparency and willingness to listen as well as speak out against injustice. My request is that you discus the kind of urban violence we see in Philly with about 5 shootings per day and almost no arrests. Thanks Glenn.
Excellent interview. Great questions. I appreciate the fact that the interviewer lets the interviewee talk without interruption. One question I think was missing would have been when Dr Loury said he “got religion.”A logical question would have been “could you expand on what you mean, what happened?” Since getting religion is so rare, it would be interesting to hear what Dr Loury meant.
And are transcripts available for the podcast.?? MUCH easier to scrutinise and skim down a text version, before committing an hour to find out its worthless after all.
/// and as a generalisation, whether they ever would be, of even come close, depends upon the journalistic standards for the relevant forum. This is the first time I have tried this one, so I have yet to learn what the quality level is.
Loury seems to have no causal analysis of the widespread of violence in American life. It seems to have been replaced by Loury’s analysis of the ever emergent political Loury.
I'm can't help being a bit curious as to how many of TGS podcasts you have heard actively ? - and not to leave out, reflected on?
And also various interviews podcast [some are, to my knowledge, also broadcasted live, but living in Denmark I usually use podcast media] in which GL partakes, sometimes alone sometimes alongside others (an example of the latter is "Uncommon Knowledge" episode 373 of july 25th 2022 " Not Buying It" where he is guest alongside Ian Rowe and Robert Woodson. That was the first time I've ever as much as heard of him).
But for TGS , just to name some few, your thoughts on ie
"the immigration debate after Buffalo" (May 23rd),
"our gun problem" (July 12th , guest Rajiv Sethi)
"The cultural Dimension of American Conflict" (August 29th, w Steve McIntosh)
"Chicago's Drift Towards Dystopia" (October 10th, guest Matt Rosenberg)
"Criminal (In)Justice" (October 24th, w Rafael Mangual)
And of course all the other not mentioned where there are one or multiple relevant references.
If you've heard these and TGS as much and actively on it as me, I'd really love to have an in-depth talk about this because I find it rather fascinating how we people can hear the exact same things and get so many differences out of them :0)
I must confess I am going solely on the interview I commented upon. To insist on one’s right and even duty to challenge what Orwell called “smelly orthodoxies” is laudable. To make one’s name merely defending that right in theory and practice is to merely to laud oneself.
I tried to consider your argument :-) I still really can't see how GL is lauding himself, but luckily we're privileged to reside in parts of the world were we can both be allowed to express out opinions without prosecution:-)
Simply to express sympathy turn about for the parties to a conflict is not particularly illuminating. I suppose if partisanship has so beclouded discourse that it seems so, to do so may be laudable. But to stop there is merely to bask in a kind of bravado ( or even given the circumstances, genuine courage. but to go no further and hence to bask).
Hi David! That's a fair point, and I'm sorry for taking it out of the context of the interview.
I guess my brain often focus (perhaps too much?) on a broader picture and not on the close by hand topic (, it's almost 9. am in Denmark, that's some self realization from the morning lol). I think I'd try to re-read the interview with your comment in mind, that would be interesting:)
Actually, you were spot on and provided overwhelming details and facts to your initial comment. While I admire your grace and giving the other person the benefit of the doubt, I do note that I think we both agree that one of Glenn’s strengths is being vocal and direct in not accepting inaccurate arguments.
I rather wonder how an argument can be inaccurate. Arguments may fail on several grounds including the inaccuracy of the premises. But my argument makes use of no premises other than the datum of the changing positions (ie, the fact of their changing) of Loury as mentioned by Loury in the interview. Loury himself as far as I can see makes no argument for the preference of one position over another and this is precisely my point. Loury claims the personal preference of the right to change his mind and illustrates it ( by telling us that he has frequently changed his mind but not why or how) but this is hardly controversial. In fact it does not attain to an argument but remains a personal preference and its illustration. If Loury has nothing more to say on violence than that he sympathises with its victims, well I suppose, so can we all. In short the entire controversy around this man seems to show up the appalling nature of US society and very little else.
Killer interview. Have only heard Hamish interview twice now with the Active Voice, but the ability to go from the jovial style with Saunders and then adapt to someone like Loury, who’s a bit reserved and skeptical of everything it seems, is a testament to Hamish’s inquisitive mind. Dig this series,
would love to occasionally discover people who aren’t world famous, if only because Substack has given a voice to so many of us who are having the same conversations, only in dive bars and local haunts across the world. Bravo
Having a conversation with those who think differently than you is good. At least you are talking. The problem is when truth is spoken those speaking the truth are thrown under the bus.
I would argue less about Truth and more about different Perspectives. And Today’s America is less tolerant of anyone’s opinions that differ from than their own.
This tendendancy of the Blob to throw people under the bus does give us the opportunity to prove that truth exists and what truth is. For example, with the recently passed Antisemitism Awareness Act, besides creating perverse incentives, it isn't about making an ignorant crack against seculars, its about claiming that seculars work together as a group more effectively and actually control Congress, banking, media and Hollywood. To prohibit one specific example of a 'conspiracy theory' when there are a hundred other conspiracy theories around is strong evidence that Truth is Powerful. Also, in other circumstances, the very same seculars boast about how they control these entities -and that's OK!
Glenn Loury is a paragon of what a professor should be, a dying breed in demoralized academia. https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-rank-the-top-npc-universities
I couldn't agree more!
(Btw I'm sorry if inappropriate to mention other than GL. But to me (living in Denmark and having no connection whatsoever beside interest personally and academically) - Glenn is (and John McW too), along with Jordan B Peterson among those who set a not only scholarly but also personal example for me.
Their integrity, courage, and ability to try to dissect their arguments and contra debate it (with themselves).
And the willingness to change their stand if they are provided with sufficiently convincing evidence.
That's an incredible ability, way too few has (I'd like to think I've got some of it too but I guess you don't really know until you are in the situation, at least im trying).
Sorry if that was a sidestep :)
It’s called being Open Minded which this gentlemen obviously is...
Indeed imagine selling yourself into debt slavery to graduate from one of these places!
What’s so striking is that Loury has found a way to speak his truth boldly, while remaining open to others and their ideas and having the courage so rare now a days to change his mind. This country is so polarized, but I feel there is more discourse rising up about compassion, dialogue and openness. This gives me hope for our future.
I LOVE Loury. A sage voice of reason among a sea of identity politics insanity. He and McWhorter tell it like it is. Contrarians, yes, but more important, critical thinkers. And he’s honest; I think that’s the major draw for me. Been listening to his podcast for years now.
I forgot about his past struggle with cocaine addiction. I’m 12 years sober myself. I just published an essay on my SS, “Sincere American Writing,” called, “Sobriety and Wokeism are Diametrically Opposed to Each Other: Why 12-step Recovery and Social Justice Warriors Collide.” Some here might be interested.
But anyway--Thank god for educated, honest intellectuals like Loury and McWhorter, especially when discussing the slippery, Orwellian concept of race in contemporary times.
Michael Mohr
‘Sincere American Writing’
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/
Thank you. If “We the People” allow main stream to divide us to the point of NO communication it WILL become much easier for THEM to conquer US! Sheep or Patriot, that is the question. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I can agree that we ALL come from the Creator and as such we have “ inalienable rights”. Let’s start with what we have in common, love of family, love of community and love of Country!
“In God We Trust.”
Hey Glenn, I sincerely appreciate your honesty, transparency and willingness to listen as well as speak out against injustice. My request is that you discus the kind of urban violence we see in Philly with about 5 shootings per day and almost no arrests. Thanks Glenn.
Even if I end up disagreeing with you on an issue I always appreciate the fact that I was put in a position to question my assumptions.
Excellent interview. Great questions. I appreciate the fact that the interviewer lets the interviewee talk without interruption. One question I think was missing would have been when Dr Loury said he “got religion.”A logical question would have been “could you expand on what you mean, what happened?” Since getting religion is so rare, it would be interesting to hear what Dr Loury meant.
Helpful feedback, thank you!
The world waits for your future.
Erratum: widespread violence, etc.
An odd thing to like. Did you need the lesson in grammar?
I must say how any informed American could have supported Reagan is a puzzle to this informed Australian
And are transcripts available for the podcast.?? MUCH easier to scrutinise and skim down a text version, before committing an hour to find out its worthless after all.
Certainly not in this case.
/// and as a generalisation, whether they ever would be, of even come close, depends upon the journalistic standards for the relevant forum. This is the first time I have tried this one, so I have yet to learn what the quality level is.
I l love to hear him. I know we disagree on stuff but he can think! He can express where disagreement is. It’s refreshing to hear him.
Loury seems to have no causal analysis of the widespread of violence in American life. It seems to have been replaced by Loury’s analysis of the ever emergent political Loury.
I'm can't help being a bit curious as to how many of TGS podcasts you have heard actively ? - and not to leave out, reflected on?
And also various interviews podcast [some are, to my knowledge, also broadcasted live, but living in Denmark I usually use podcast media] in which GL partakes, sometimes alone sometimes alongside others (an example of the latter is "Uncommon Knowledge" episode 373 of july 25th 2022 " Not Buying It" where he is guest alongside Ian Rowe and Robert Woodson. That was the first time I've ever as much as heard of him).
But for TGS , just to name some few, your thoughts on ie
"the immigration debate after Buffalo" (May 23rd),
"our gun problem" (July 12th , guest Rajiv Sethi)
"The cultural Dimension of American Conflict" (August 29th, w Steve McIntosh)
"Chicago's Drift Towards Dystopia" (October 10th, guest Matt Rosenberg)
"Criminal (In)Justice" (October 24th, w Rafael Mangual)
And of course all the other not mentioned where there are one or multiple relevant references.
If you've heard these and TGS as much and actively on it as me, I'd really love to have an in-depth talk about this because I find it rather fascinating how we people can hear the exact same things and get so many differences out of them :0)
I must confess I am going solely on the interview I commented upon. To insist on one’s right and even duty to challenge what Orwell called “smelly orthodoxies” is laudable. To make one’s name merely defending that right in theory and practice is to merely to laud oneself.
I tried to consider your argument :-) I still really can't see how GL is lauding himself, but luckily we're privileged to reside in parts of the world were we can both be allowed to express out opinions without prosecution:-)
Simply to express sympathy turn about for the parties to a conflict is not particularly illuminating. I suppose if partisanship has so beclouded discourse that it seems so, to do so may be laudable. But to stop there is merely to bask in a kind of bravado ( or even given the circumstances, genuine courage. but to go no further and hence to bask).
Hi David! That's a fair point, and I'm sorry for taking it out of the context of the interview.
I guess my brain often focus (perhaps too much?) on a broader picture and not on the close by hand topic (, it's almost 9. am in Denmark, that's some self realization from the morning lol). I think I'd try to re-read the interview with your comment in mind, that would be interesting:)
Actually, you were spot on and provided overwhelming details and facts to your initial comment. While I admire your grace and giving the other person the benefit of the doubt, I do note that I think we both agree that one of Glenn’s strengths is being vocal and direct in not accepting inaccurate arguments.
"[...] I do note that I think we both agree that one of Glenn’s strengths is being vocal and direct in not accepting inaccurate arguments."
You're exactly right - and thank you for the kind words.
I rather wonder how an argument can be inaccurate. Arguments may fail on several grounds including the inaccuracy of the premises. But my argument makes use of no premises other than the datum of the changing positions (ie, the fact of their changing) of Loury as mentioned by Loury in the interview. Loury himself as far as I can see makes no argument for the preference of one position over another and this is precisely my point. Loury claims the personal preference of the right to change his mind and illustrates it ( by telling us that he has frequently changed his mind but not why or how) but this is hardly controversial. In fact it does not attain to an argument but remains a personal preference and its illustration. If Loury has nothing more to say on violence than that he sympathises with its victims, well I suppose, so can we all. In short the entire controversy around this man seems to show up the appalling nature of US society and very little else.
Ps. TGS had a podcast on October 24th: "Criminal (In)Justice", with Rafael Mangual of the Manhattan Institute, I can recommend this :-)
It does seem ironic that a post on a thread about Loury should be deleted.
Killer interview. Have only heard Hamish interview twice now with the Active Voice, but the ability to go from the jovial style with Saunders and then adapt to someone like Loury, who’s a bit reserved and skeptical of everything it seems, is a testament to Hamish’s inquisitive mind. Dig this series,
would love to occasionally discover people who aren’t world famous, if only because Substack has given a voice to so many of us who are having the same conversations, only in dive bars and local haunts across the world. Bravo