17:52 Seems like a real pharisaic log of moral failing in his own eye whilst complaining about a splinter in anothers. What of the consequences of this wishcasting having been successful?
John McWhorter is more interested in his status on the Left rather than the rule of law and taking an unpopular stance in the academic community. He is really brainwashed and a tool for the same in others.
John, what does it mean to "conduct oneself as a woman"? When i was a child, my teachers constantly complained that I did not "act like a girl." Does that mean I was not a girl?
This is scary stuff. I hadn't realized John's hatred had advanced that far. You're both heroes to me. Please Glenn, bring him back to the rational fold.
Those of you who think either Trump or Biden are qualified to run a nation are the irrational ones. John's distrust of Trump is just a result of using his eyes, ears, and brain. I will say this, Trump is so self interested and uninterested in governance, he will simply do whatever the military industrial complex tells him to do, which is what all these presidents since Reagan have done. Hence why the country has been sliding towards autocracy. But yeah, "let's bring John back to the rational fold." Give me a break.
Dear Glenn. I commend your character, approach, and tone. You're a credit to the country and to all that take the time to listen to you. You're a larger figure to show the respect you did to Mr. McWhorter, despite his wrong views relating to his wishes that Trump be killed. Horrifying... Love listening to you Glenn. Thanks. Salam
@@fiddlermargieI agree. Trump’s function, as far as the radicals are concerned, is to be the exemplar for the first person people can agree don’t deserve human rights. Then you simply move to the next “worst” conservative, then the next. The way I see it, there is no right without a left. An up without a down, etc. The desire to eradicate the opposite of what you are is profoundly childish. It’s like trying to imagine North in a conceptual universe that doesn’t have a South.
@@Brotherken1234 the algorithm can search for pictures and dialogue; which is why many have received strikes for saying certain things about the vaxx. or why certain music can get your channel demonetized. it's not that difficult.
Pretending to be a woman does not give you license to insist on female pronouns. Feminine men and masculine women are a thing, and they don't get new pronouns for their costuming.
I wish John would have addressed the first question without name calling and instead use examples of policies he made to back his claim. In regards to the insurrection it's not illegal to ask the Congress/House to address claims of voter discrepancies, in fact, it's their job, in fact, several representatives had claims they wanted addressed prior to the pause then they were not addressed when they returned. Look into it.
McWhorter is the one acting like a five year old. Instead of espousing an objective critique of Trump’s presidency, McWhorter’s argument is predicated entirely on emotional name calling: Trump is a “baboon”, a “5-year old”, a “moron”. What a child-like bias McWhorter exhibits. Thank heaven for the objective deductive reasoning of Dr Lowery. Keep up the good work Dr Lowery for shining light on these dangerous anti democratic tactics.
Trump failed to get us the infrastructure he promised. He failed to get us the wall, Trump was slow in his response to covid until he got it...or atleast could take credit (he should get it) for operation warp speed, Trump did petition a foreign govt for dirt, Trump did indeed say the there were fine people on both sides of Charlottesville (so yes "fine people" chanting Jews will not replace us" (free speech sure, but reprehensible), Trump didn't believe in environmental protections, he didn't believe in big business regulations because it was supposed to let businesses pass on money to its employees but they instead did stock buy backs, strained relations with our actual allies( Nato), Mexican border (we typically frown on putting people in fences and separating families right?), his pettiness towards the media and anyone in general who didn't like him(threats to sue), his scheme to change election certification results, and finally the amount of debt he racked up. Did he do anything good? Sure he did, his help towards HBCUs (though we could argue it was kinda dishonest since his budget actually slashed funds for them when initially proposed), stock market was great(though that had less to do with anything he actually did) and operation warpspeed, opportunity zones(jury is still out since there's no data but it can be argued that even though it's just a tax shelter for rich investors, it benefits poor areas anyway.
It’s a fair description of Trump though. Someone with such severe narcissism and ignorance shouldn’t be in the position of running the most powerful country in the world. John does well to call out the situation.
I find it hard to swallow that John is so worried that Trump *might* persecute his enemies when the Democratic Party *has* done that constantly over the last decade.
@@ninadaly7639 Seriously? Law-fare convictions Russia, Russia … Impeachment for something that Biden did, for which Biden is on tape saying how proud he is for doing it J6 “insurrection” Too many to list.
This was recorded before the debate so we have to at least allow John the benefit of plausible deniability but he refuted the opening question on the grounds that he was not opposed to Trump for his moral character or behavior but rather for his insufficient intellectual capacity for the office. But now, one can’t possibly make that argument about Trump without insisting that Biden must immediately resign as his capacity, in present state, is a shadow of Trump’s. His denunciation of Biden would need to be AT LEAST as strident as it is of Trump or he would be exposing that his actual motive is just what people, including the questioner, have assumed - a simple but deep repulsion of Trump’s personality. Which is hardly grounds for the type of prosecutorial misconduct he is defending. He really should reflect.
john, the point of the first questioner was... is it YOUR place to deny the American people the right to determine for themselves if Trump is capable of being president - Glenn was right, whats immoral is keeping Trump off the ballot because you cant beat him in the arena of ideas.
Wrong. Dr McWhorter is incredulous, and so am I. It's not his place "to deny the American people blah, blah, blah," and that is not what he did. Trump does not meet his standard. It's that simple. He's not denying the American people anything. For Christ's sake.
Also John failed to notice that what he is afraid Trump might do to his opposition if he regains Presidency is literally what the current administration has been doing to Trump.
It's getting hard because he's not offering any kind of insightful dialog. His arguments are about as basic as any wine mom from Vermont who casually skims the New York times and thinks she's very informed and politically sophisticated. Not sure it's worth any of out time.
I pretty much agree with what John says about Trump. He did strike me as an idiot in 2016. I was very upset when he won that November. And yet, I experienced 4 years of his presidency, and it did not seem like a bad four years - except in one respect - which is that my (Democratic) Party seems to have lost its mind, and also now seems to have been largely captured by the cult of wokeness. So however bad Trump is, it seems like the alternative is worse.
@@spearfisherman308 some people ask why rand paul does not run; but he has and lost badly. fully understands there are many factors outside his command which make the top decisions.
John's positions on the pronoun issue are baffling. He doesn't see it as a delusion. He doesn't think pronouns have any political relevance. And he thinks Ketanji Brown Jackson was "wise" for responding the way she did. I'm at a loss for words. And John is so sincerely oblivious, that it's genuinely sad to see. I don't know if he's just afraid to look the truth in the face, do a little bit of investigation, if he's just trying to protect his reputation with the remainding left fanbase he has, or if he doesn't wanna Jinx his book release. Whatever it is, it's clear the man has become enveloped in the same style of religion he so famously accurately categorised the woke as.
Technically Jewish means genetics,, but we let nonJew converts use the word.. so let a trans convert outside a bathroom use the word.... Words can be awkward, we lack a word for cultural Jewishness and cultural Womanness.... Jon told Glenn to really yell at him this ep, and that took guts.
Helen is fantastic. No cute academics for John. even though I love Kathleen but Aime Ichikawa, Kellie Jay Keen Minshull, Julie Bindel, Kara Dansky, Coach Linda Blade.... "Kind" men on the left need women who actually work with women and girls on these issues in prisons, rape shelters, the court room, and schools. It's still theory for him.
Another rewarding conversation between two people who have differences, but also have so much respect for one another and show that in their professionalism and kindness. It gives me hope that through your example, more people might learn to speak to each other, especially those they disagree with, in a kind, and personable manner. Please keep up these conversations and continue to challenge each other.
Yes John is very "respectful" in his public desire for the assassination of a former President of the United States to stop him being President again I never thought Sam Harris saying he wouldn't care if Hunter Biden had the bodies of dead children in his basement if it stopped Trump from being President again could be topped but John did it here.😂
It obvious and endearing to witness , the affection, the respect and the adherence to the decorum of well intentioned conversation between these two gentlemen. Inspiring and heartwarming for sure.
I am a long time subscriber - just watched this the day after the assassination attempt. I could not be more astounded by McWhorter’s comments. Not at all the man I thought he was
As much as I respect John, I’ve never heard Trump, who John said is all these terrible things, wished for another American to die. Which person has now said more reprehensible things ? Damn!
How's the math on this? Someone who has said something as reprehensible as John said/implied once vs someone who has said main reprehensible things many times outloud and be applauded for it?
Great point. He is justifying Stalinism (whacking or jailing political opponents) based upon name calling. The only dangerous action John cites is an insurrection that happened only in John's deranged mind.
@@ninadaly7639 you've gotta remember Trump is the only president that's allowed to be graded on a curve. Lol and nothing he says should be taken seriously for some reason
@@ninadaly7639 Nice, a story from a corrupt mainstream media with no real sources. When you have delusional hate for a guy you'll believe whatever they feed you. Afterall they gave you all that hate anyway. Its really a case study for decades to come on manipulation by the mainstream media on a public with othering of a group of people that hasn't been seen since Nazi Germany.
John is usually so informed and insightful. But, his willful blindness when it comes to Trump is bewildering- it also makes me deeply sad for him, and lessens my respect for John
I feel the same. A painful disappointment as I see his sense of himself as so superior that his spoken death wishes are just the ultra-cool fruit of an elite genius.
@@ninadaly7639 let's see, how about trying to bankrupt someone (half a billion dollars) for repaying a loan with interest, or imprison your political enemy with 34 felonies for paying for a perfectly legal NDA. Or the selective prosecution of a former President for having classified documents. Do you not think every President leaves office with 1000's of documents?
@@aidananstey9848 Well the half a billion was for essentially bank fraud inflating and deflating assets on loan applications. You are confusing his trials. The 34 felonies he was just convicted of were not the product of “selective prosecution” and he was found guilty of falsifying business records to use campaign money to pay off a porn star he slept with who was about to release her story to the press. As for the classified documents he STOLE from the White House that he knew he wasn’t supposed to have, what better evidence do you need than when asked to give them back, he HID the documents from the DOJ (still has some too) and lied and said he’d given them all back.. Sorry, but he is a CRIMINAL and belongs in prison. WAKE UP!!!
@@ninadaly7639 one easy example is the ridiculous argument they uses to up the stormy Daniels payment misreporting from a misdemeanor to a felony. It makes absolutely no sense. The misreporting is only a felony if it happened to cover up a larger crime. But they never showed any larger crime was ever present! It's a crime based on a non existant crime. If you are being intellectually honest at all then you understand that most, if not all, of the things Trump is being charged for is because of political reasons. The legal arguments are all very weak and wouldn't be pursued if Trump would have decided not to run. There is way way too much to get into in a comment section. Read Allen Dershowitz the famous legal scholar. (A democrat BTW) He has a lot to say.
Unless the Supreme Court re-affirms my right to use the English language AS I CHOOSE and rejects compelled speech in a ruling, I'm not using anybody's preferred pronouns. Controlling speech is a marxist tactic. The point is to HUMILIATE people (you are doing it, though. YOU are forcing YOURSELF to use the language that you do not want to use or believe in - you know, that TWINGE that you feel when you call the bearded man in a dress "she'...?), this prepares you for humiliating yourself in speaking untruths a NORMAL part of your life and therefore you are more willing to do so in the future.
Sometimes I forget John really does not have the capacity to think about second or third order consequences. Ironically, this means he thinks more like a child than Trump does. He can't ignore his hatred of Trump for a moment to consider the consequences to the nation and implications for future political prosecution. He refuses to consider that pronouns reflect gender and that this has major implications beyond personal conversations because of the way we as a society use gender for sex based categorization (ie, sports, scholarships, medicine, bathrooms, etc).
I think someone tweaked John's algorithm; Alan Derschowitz, perhaps the most experienced, high-profile Democrat lawyer in the country, has a show on RU-vid (The Dershow) where he marvels at the absurdity of Bragg's case against Trump (among the the others). Has John watched? He seems oddly bemused by Trump's conviction, as if it doesn't indicate that his side of the political divide has become far more dangerous to the legitimacy of our political system than anything else in US history.
Yet Trump (the victim of politicised DOJ lawfare) was the one asked during the debate whether he would weaponise the DOJ against Democrats. And the next day, to the chants of "lock him up" Biden grinned and said "there is still time for that, he has more trials coming up". UNBELIEVABLE.
Charity necessarily involves truth. Agreeing with a ninety pound anorexic woman who sincerely sees herself as obese is not civil or charitable. She may be perfectly reasonable in all other aspects of her life. These issues are indeed complicated. It may be perfectly fine to say to a biological man " you believe you are a woman and behave as though you are a woman". It would be untruthful and uncharitable to say to that same biological man " you are a woman". Being truthful is difficult enough in the absence of compelled dishonesty.
The last question is heartbreaking. I understand where John is politically, and that's one of the reasons i tune in. But man, i feel for the last person. Whoever that is, I love you, dude.
I love you guys. You just make sense. I speak from the "point de vue" of a retired senior French diplomatic attaché concerning North America in general, and the USA more specifically, and I think you're mostly spot on in your analysis of the situation in regard to violent crimes in your country. How can you live that way? Now, I live in Brittany, France, and there is never a doubt in my mind that when I shop, I will go back to my home with my groceries. Explain to me how the contrary is even possible in a first world country.
You have "no go zones" all over your country, and especially in the suburbs of Paris. What does this mean? How is this even possible in a first world country? Have you surrendered to the Muslim invaders? I thought France was a secular state? And now the red-green alliance, the communist-Muslim alliance rules your ruined nation.
It's not that McWhorter "said stuff like that publicly" that is disturbing; it is that it is the way he truly feels! Lol. Oh well, that sort of thing is par for the course for Ivy League professors nowadays.
Absolutely. The Left constantly labels the Right as fascist , but they truly want the death of their political opponents. I literally cannot think of one of my conservative that feels that way about the Left. Do they dislike them? Absolutely. Despise them? In some cases, yes. Want them dead? Absolutely not.
Pronouns are somewhat like 1x1=2. Morally, if you can help someone with this kind of "new development", it's the right thing to do if you truly care about sharing the gift of rational thinking. If you're graduating blacks without it, it explains a lot about competitiveness.
John McWhorter and Glenn Loury are parents and teachers. Both inspire and inform young people. Both occupy positions of trust and responsibility. Watching and listening to Glenn and John giggle about John's fantasies about murder, fantasies he clearly enjoys and savors, made me physically ill. I was absolutely floored that both found any part of this discussion funny, or in any possible sense amusing. We use one word to identify people who get off on fantasizing about murder, death, and pain - that word is sick. "What did you learn in class today, Jennie." - "My prof and his buddy talked about how much he wants someone to kill Donald Trump." Claudine Gay lost her job at Harvard for a similar lapse. Nobody who fantasizes and giggles about murder online openly before family members and students has any business near young people. I sincerely hope the social agencies in John's neighborhood are alerted. John has bragged in the past about teaching his children to hate - to hate Trump. Now John is teaching his family member and his students to 'kill'. I've never before heard anything quite so offensive spill from the lips of two purported 'academics.' Platforming an assassination fantasist must have consequences. No matter that both men behave like children. Neither 'role model' seems remotely aware that young people in their care will watch and listen to every word, that the internet is forever. Let's "share assassination fantasies!" Tell us more, John! WTF? I've followed both for years off and on. I'll now avoid them for the monsters they reveal themselves to be. John needs help badly, Glenn, not encouragement. Your lack of maturity is deeply disappointing. Absolutely horrifying.
It's honestly kind of upsetting and sad to hear McWhorter and other people I respect rant with such unrestrained, proud hatred about Donald Trump. (It would be sad and upsetting to hear them talk about anyone like this.) It is every last bit as obsessive and inexplicably vicious as the Right's hatred of Hillary Clinton--I would argue, more so. I don't understand it. In terms of human suffering caused, Trump wasn't even nearly as bad as, say, Bush. Nothing terrible happened; the sky didn't fall, as Loury said. Hatred of an individual to this level, no matter who the individual is, certainly doesn't highlight the most likeable aspects of the people expressing it. They sound far crazier and nastier than the object of their hatred.
Trump is our modern day Cincinnatus. A man who’s put his freedom, fortune, and sacred honor on the line for to save this country. A man who lost $1 billion his first term while being attacked relentlessly who’s now come back for round 2….if that isn’t character and integrity I don’t know what is. What has John done for this country?
Love how, for Trump supporters, any argument to the effect that Trump is dangerous and unqualified for the presidency is irrational... Calling someone irrational is a conversation stopper, which is mighty convenient when you're trying to defend the indefensible.
People who live in or have lived in NYC at the same time as Trump have more information about his actions and his character. The back to the Future movie featured Trump as president of the United States in a radically twisted version of the future it's not derangement if it's accurate.
Always enjoy the conversations. On the subject of black under achievement in more scholarly pursuits while being well represented in performing arts and sports fields, I think John pointed us in the right direction with his skating rink example. I think more attention needs to be paid to the peer pressure exerted on people who tend to outperform others in their group no matter whether the setting is in school, at work, or in a community. If doing well in school is looked down on, but being a good dancer, or excelling at a particular sport is admired, there is enormous pressure put on a young person to not pursue that which is causes them to be ostracized in their community.
American autonomy, self-rule, unalienable and equal rights, rule of law, representation, liberty, justice, security and peace,,, kiss 'em all good bye if never Trumpers stay in power.
Blacks, in general have a certain hostility to education which I believe is the primary reason for their academic problems. However it's important to recognize that this was not always the case. In the 30's, 40's and probably even the 50's this attitude was far less common.
Blacks don't do well educationally anywhere in the world--not in Africa, America, Canada, Brazil, Cuba, Britain, France, etc. Are they uniformly hostile to education in all of these many, many places? They certainly do not have the same cultures or religions or histories in these places. So, why would they have the same hostility everywhere? They don't--and this hostility is not the primary cause of their educational problems.
JM makes some of the most moronic arguments and comments. He’s once again reminding me why I’ve stopped watching these two together. I can listen to Glenn and even disagree on issues but at least he makes better arguments than JM.
He's not an intellectual. He has a slightly higher-than-average IQ and has a large vocabulary from reading, but he's certainly not an "intellectual." He objectively lacks the ability to reason beyond an average person. His response to Glenn when asked if he thought the conflict would end with Trump's death is all the evidence you need.
Oh, and I grew up in a working class Italian neighborhood and yes, that "no smart boys" attitude, while not overtly expressed, was definitely alive and well.
What would John McWhorter say if someone wished death on Biden? He is so unprofessional and small for wishing death on a political opponent. You have just lost me. I will no longer watch another episode with John McWhorter in it. Thank goodness Glenn Loury is a much more reasonable and logical person.
Glenn and John I enjoy your thoughtful and honest commentary. Depending on the issue I agree with both of you and other times one of you. John, I am a black American woman in your age group. Please do not go there with the black girls " only wanted the thug " stereotype. I was raised in a majority white mostly conservative midwestern town. Growing up, many of my best friends were white. Most teen girls were crushing on the cute athletes and ignoring the " nerdy boys ". Race had nothing to do with it. " Smart " equaled " nerd " to a young teen girl. Is that any different when most teen boys overlooked the shy smart girls for the popular cheerleaders?🤔 Or black teen boys choosing light skin girls over dark skin girls ( colorism ). Or white teen boys overlooking the burette girls for the blond girls? Please stop.
He's usually so awesome and wise, so this is the first time I've seen McWhorter irrational and wrong. It's a dislocating experience because it feels like a deliberate embrace of injustice as a tool. "The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." ― Albert Camus
John has just embraced Stalinim: ok to jail Trump on political charges in order to keep Trump for being President. Then he resorts to name calling, instead of addressing Trump's actual policies.
Since Covid and Trump, so many people have revealed the totalitarian mindset just below the civilized veneer. Fear seems to be at the root; fear is so effective for manipulating people.
But the people that were starting the riot and the woman killed, who was trying to stop them beating on the window. There are so many stories out there that are wrong and covered up or destroyed.
40:00 "Am I not a man?" The fact that there's no "am not" contraction necessitates a workaround. Irregardless (without lack of regard) is a much bigger oddity IMO.
No. It's "so smart" ALONE that's the problem. When you're as intelligent at John, you probably have incredible rationalizing ability. And then you can convince yourself to believe complete dross. This is the scourge of intelligent Leftists.
The idea that ‘gender’ being separate from sex is, as John says ‘complicated’, is laughable. It is navel gazing nonsense. There is no such thing as trans. It does not mean anything to identify as the opposite gender since the ONLY thing that makes one a man or a woman is their biological sex. A man cannot feel like a woman. It is quite literally not possible. Every feeling that a man has is that of a man. The transes have not solved the problem of solipsism. There are no ‘non binary’ people. It is a meaningless concept. John has bought into this concept which is why he has no problem participating in it and using its language. He fails to understand the other side of the argument, namely that the entire idea of ‘trans’ is a farce. That there are no trans people, there are no non binary people, and therefore the answer to their request to be called by special terms is simply ‘no’. To answer his shallow question, if I knew a ‘non binary’ person and they asked me to call them ‘they’, I would simply answer that I do not participate in that religion and I won’t be callling that person ‘they’. It is up to both of us to decide if we wish to associate with each other and to be frank, I would opt out before it got to this ‘they/them’ discussion in much the same way that I would not associate with a paranoid schizophrenic.
I ❤your conversations but I’m dismayed by John’s failure to fully grasp the way Democrats have thrown women’s rights under the bus. Women have been relegated to a role as validation props for dysfunctional men. Our concerns are constantly dismissed and I really didn’t expect John to elevate these men as a sacred caste entitled to dismantle every safeguard around women and children 😢
I’m convinced the hate for Donald comes from peoples hate to their own fathers. Forgive them and let the hate go. When you don’t inwardly reflect you outwardly project 🤷🏻♂️MAGA 2024
With all due respect when it comes to repeatedly asking for a concise and logical response to Joe’s, question, John sounds delusional, smug, and caught up in his feelings about Trump Classic case of TDS if I’ve ever seen one…
I am still listening, so I haven’t heard the discussion yet, but I can say that I will never use the they/them neopronouns for anyone. First of all, they are PLURAL pronouns and would result in inaccurate grammar and communication. Second of all, we already have usage rules that cover neuter or ambiguous situations. We have “it” and “that,” or even the use of the masculine pronouns in cases of ambiguity.
Also, calling a man a woman makes it MUCH harder to argue they shouldn’t be where you don’t want them. Why shouldn’t “she” be in the locker room if she’s a she? I have a friend whom I always call by his preferred pronouns. But in the arguments about who goes where and competes with whom, you gotta call them by the proper pronouns, not the preferred.
The point of language is to distinguish between separate things. When you include hes with shes you have not made language more civil, but you have failed to use language for its intended purpose. It is equivalent to when a person calls themselves a Christian yet does not believe what Christians do (example: Mormons). By expanding the definition you are actually destroying the definition.
Re: “slippery slope of pronouns”, I think the trap is that they (adherents of this ideology) frequently conflate and delineate on a dime about these concepts and they can change entire categorical definitions within single sentences depending on what they are attempting to argue. Acquiescing to the “polite” use of preferred pronouns does indeed gradually influence common parlance and lend gravity to the claim that gender/sex are arbitrary and fluid (again, terms they commonly mix and match as needed) which obviously spills over into policy and medical practice.
I respect John McWhorter's take on a great many things but he really misses me about Trump. I just dont understand how anyone can see difficult social matters with such clarity and be some whole other person in his views and assessments of Trump. I drop out when he talks Trump.
If a black man murdered Trump because of what John said would he be as sympathetic towards Trump's kids as he was toward the landlord's kid? There is so much violence in the black community I'm surprised and disappointed that John would say such a thing. Wish he was as compassionate as he is intelligent.
John, I'm a huge fan and I largely agree with your characterization of Trump. That being said, you really should look further into the details of the Bragg case. I had always maintained that, while some of the legal cases against Trump were wholly politically motivated and would not have been brought against anyone else, he was almost certainly guilty in all of them. After seeing the specifics of the Bragg case, however, I can't with any confidence even claim that he is actually guilty. I'm not sure what sources you are basing your opinion on here, but from the several articles I've read, it appears that the instances of seeming misconduct by both the prosecutor and judge were numerous and pretty egregious. I think I feel a little more trepidation than you regarding politically motivated prosecutions in general, but I am outright alarmed at how the law has been manipulated in this instance and I think it sets quite a scary precedent.
It was fine to call them by a certain pronoun until they started wanting special privileges. One bad apple or in this case 1000 bad apples ruin the bunch !!
